Posted by colonels19 on 11/1/2010 2:01:00 AM (view original):

Again though, I guess to back emy's point...who exactly is hurting because of wisefella's "petulance"?  Maybe 11 humans in the conference, 2 of which have already said that it's no big deal?  It's a free win on your schedule now, hell I'll take that any day.  If you're trying to somehow convince me that "negatively impacting" at most 8% of any team's schedule is a big deal, then you're simply barking up the wrong tree...the things you guys want to nail to the cross...

At what point do you blame the company and the principles that caused this behavior, whether you think it's warranted or not?

I'd blame the company if the messenger wasn't f'ing over his conference mates and those that had scheduled him for next season.  

We've been alerted to this situation and will have it resolved today.  There was one coach who did submit a support ticket about it, which is helpful to make us aware of these kinds of things.  We aren't always able to monitor the forums on a consistent basis.

Posted by angmar on 10/31/2010 10:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 10/31/2010 9:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by angmar on 10/31/2010 8:51:00 PM:
As far as sticking to an argument, what point is there to argue?  You either agree or disagree with what he did.  Sounds like an opinion to me and I've already stated my position on the matter.

Sorry, whose alias is this again? Because 'angmar' hasn't expressed an opinion on wisefella's actions at all in this thread.

This is emy/dcy, and you already know that anton.

If I did, I'd forgotten it. Keeping track of all your aliases isn't a huge priority for me.

Posted by rednu on 11/1/2010 1:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 10/31/2010 9:58:00 PM (view original):
Question for the crowd (and forget for a minute what Wise did).  How come no one ever throws a fit when a coach/team sacrifices a season/season and a half switching their Offense or Defense?  At the very basic level, the same thing is happening, the coach is throwing in the towel for a whole season.  Yet, no one EVER complains when this happens.  Why?

And what if, after a season, said coach decides he doesn't like the new O or D and switches back to the original O and D and wastes another season.  No one would say a word.  Why not?  Curious......

For the sake of giving you an answer -- intent.

Presumably, said coach is sacrificing that season for the purpose of building for the future, sacrificing the short term for the sake of the program's growth. That would seem to differ from the present case because here, no "growth" appears intended (I know you said to forget for a minute, but I figure I'll head off the obvious follow-up question). 

For the same reason, if a switch back occurs, its still presumably being done with an intent to improve the situation (maybe not the most efficient execution, but that's the fun of a strategy game, we each get to craft our own strategies, part of which ultimately is trial and error). Similarly, I squawk to high heaven about free HD teams that sign nine walkons because their owner used their balance to fund the search for recruits for another program but won't complain when a newbie coach doesn't click Division I off his player search filter and blows his wad trying to get D-I recruits for a D-III program and winds up with nine walkons instead as a result. The intent was there, the execution was lacking. 

How does switching offense/defense even 'sacrifice' a season? You've still got IQs built up in the old sets, which you can run until your new IQs are at whatever you consider an adequate level. The entire premise of the question is flawed.

Posted by antonsirius on 11/1/2010 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/1/2010 1:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 10/31/2010 9:58:00 PM (view original):
Question for the crowd (and forget for a minute what Wise did).  How come no one ever throws a fit when a coach/team sacrifices a season/season and a half switching their Offense or Defense?  At the very basic level, the same thing is happening, the coach is throwing in the towel for a whole season.  Yet, no one EVER complains when this happens.  Why?

And what if, after a season, said coach decides he doesn't like the new O or D and switches back to the original O and D and wastes another season.  No one would say a word.  Why not?  Curious......

For the sake of giving you an answer -- intent.

Presumably, said coach is sacrificing that season for the purpose of building for the future, sacrificing the short term for the sake of the program's growth. That would seem to differ from the present case because here, no "growth" appears intended (I know you said to forget for a minute, but I figure I'll head off the obvious follow-up question). 

For the same reason, if a switch back occurs, its still presumably being done with an intent to improve the situation (maybe not the most efficient execution, but that's the fun of a strategy game, we each get to craft our own strategies, part of which ultimately is trial and error). Similarly, I squawk to high heaven about free HD teams that sign nine walkons because their owner used their balance to fund the search for recruits for another program but won't complain when a newbie coach doesn't click Division I off his player search filter and blows his wad trying to get D-I recruits for a D-III program and winds up with nine walkons instead as a result. The intent was there, the execution was lacking. 

How does switching offense/defense even 'sacrifice' a season? You've still got IQs built up in the old sets, which you can run until your new IQs are at whatever you consider an adequate level. The entire premise of the question is flawed.

Perhaps I should have been ultra-specific and said that this coach would also be running the new O and D from day one?  Would that have made it a little clearer and less flawed?

Posted by emy1013 on 11/1/2010 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 11/1/2010 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/1/2010 1:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 10/31/2010 9:58:00 PM (view original):
Question for the crowd (and forget for a minute what Wise did).  How come no one ever throws a fit when a coach/team sacrifices a season/season and a half switching their Offense or Defense?  At the very basic level, the same thing is happening, the coach is throwing in the towel for a whole season.  Yet, no one EVER complains when this happens.  Why?

And what if, after a season, said coach decides he doesn't like the new O or D and switches back to the original O and D and wastes another season.  No one would say a word.  Why not?  Curious......

For the sake of giving you an answer -- intent.

Presumably, said coach is sacrificing that season for the purpose of building for the future, sacrificing the short term for the sake of the program's growth. That would seem to differ from the present case because here, no "growth" appears intended (I know you said to forget for a minute, but I figure I'll head off the obvious follow-up question). 

For the same reason, if a switch back occurs, its still presumably being done with an intent to improve the situation (maybe not the most efficient execution, but that's the fun of a strategy game, we each get to craft our own strategies, part of which ultimately is trial and error). Similarly, I squawk to high heaven about free HD teams that sign nine walkons because their owner used their balance to fund the search for recruits for another program but won't complain when a newbie coach doesn't click Division I off his player search filter and blows his wad trying to get D-I recruits for a D-III program and winds up with nine walkons instead as a result. The intent was there, the execution was lacking. 

How does switching offense/defense even 'sacrifice' a season? You've still got IQs built up in the old sets, which you can run until your new IQs are at whatever you consider an adequate level. The entire premise of the question is flawed.

Perhaps I should have been ultra-specific and said that this coach would also be running the new O and D from day one?  Would that have made it a little clearer and less flawed?

Would not make a bit of difference. 

One thing is a coaching strategy looking toward the future ... the other is team decimation because you want to kill the team before you quit.

If you want to coach in a certain way, you can do that.  If you want to dump your roster before you quit because you didn't get the job you wanted, then you are just pathetic.

I have communicated with wisefella99 and he expressed a desire to stay on as coach and try to recover the program.  I've decided to let him do so with a warning that any further poor behavior won't be allowed.  It's understandable to be frustrated at times with the game, but I hope he understands that he acted poorly in this situation and that there are much more constructive ways to get across criticism.

Posted by hughesjr on 11/1/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 11/1/2010 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 11/1/2010 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/1/2010 1:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 10/31/2010 9:58:00 PM (view original):
Question for the crowd (and forget for a minute what Wise did).  How come no one ever throws a fit when a coach/team sacrifices a season/season and a half switching their Offense or Defense?  At the very basic level, the same thing is happening, the coach is throwing in the towel for a whole season.  Yet, no one EVER complains when this happens.  Why?

And what if, after a season, said coach decides he doesn't like the new O or D and switches back to the original O and D and wastes another season.  No one would say a word.  Why not?  Curious......

For the sake of giving you an answer -- intent.

Presumably, said coach is sacrificing that season for the purpose of building for the future, sacrificing the short term for the sake of the program's growth. That would seem to differ from the present case because here, no "growth" appears intended (I know you said to forget for a minute, but I figure I'll head off the obvious follow-up question). 

For the same reason, if a switch back occurs, its still presumably being done with an intent to improve the situation (maybe not the most efficient execution, but that's the fun of a strategy game, we each get to craft our own strategies, part of which ultimately is trial and error). Similarly, I squawk to high heaven about free HD teams that sign nine walkons because their owner used their balance to fund the search for recruits for another program but won't complain when a newbie coach doesn't click Division I off his player search filter and blows his wad trying to get D-I recruits for a D-III program and winds up with nine walkons instead as a result. The intent was there, the execution was lacking. 

How does switching offense/defense even 'sacrifice' a season? You've still got IQs built up in the old sets, which you can run until your new IQs are at whatever you consider an adequate level. The entire premise of the question is flawed.

Perhaps I should have been ultra-specific and said that this coach would also be running the new O and D from day one?  Would that have made it a little clearer and less flawed?

Would not make a bit of difference. 

One thing is a coaching strategy looking toward the future ... the other is team decimation because you want to kill the team before you quit.

If you want to coach in a certain way, you can do that.  If you want to dump your roster before you quit because you didn't get the job you wanted, then you are just pathetic.

That was directed towards Anton, Hughes. 

Posted by hughesjr on 11/1/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 11/1/2010 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 11/1/2010 10:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 11/1/2010 1:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 10/31/2010 9:58:00 PM (view original):
Question for the crowd (and forget for a minute what Wise did).  How come no one ever throws a fit when a coach/team sacrifices a season/season and a half switching their Offense or Defense?  At the very basic level, the same thing is happening, the coach is throwing in the towel for a whole season.  Yet, no one EVER complains when this happens.  Why?

And what if, after a season, said coach decides he doesn't like the new O or D and switches back to the original O and D and wastes another season.  No one would say a word.  Why not?  Curious......

For the sake of giving you an answer -- intent.

Presumably, said coach is sacrificing that season for the purpose of building for the future, sacrificing the short term for the sake of the program's growth. That would seem to differ from the present case because here, no "growth" appears intended (I know you said to forget for a minute, but I figure I'll head off the obvious follow-up question). 

For the same reason, if a switch back occurs, its still presumably being done with an intent to improve the situation (maybe not the most efficient execution, but that's the fun of a strategy game, we each get to craft our own strategies, part of which ultimately is trial and error). Similarly, I squawk to high heaven about free HD teams that sign nine walkons because their owner used their balance to fund the search for recruits for another program but won't complain when a newbie coach doesn't click Division I off his player search filter and blows his wad trying to get D-I recruits for a D-III program and winds up with nine walkons instead as a result. The intent was there, the execution was lacking. 

How does switching offense/defense even 'sacrifice' a season? You've still got IQs built up in the old sets, which you can run until your new IQs are at whatever you consider an adequate level. The entire premise of the question is flawed.

Perhaps I should have been ultra-specific and said that this coach would also be running the new O and D from day one?  Would that have made it a little clearer and less flawed?

Would not make a bit of difference. 

One thing is a coaching strategy looking toward the future ... the other is team decimation because you want to kill the team before you quit.

If you want to coach in a certain way, you can do that.  If you want to dump your roster before you quit because you didn't get the job you wanted, then you are just pathetic.

I'd say if a coach feels he has a better chance of winning by running, say F/D- IQs in Man rather than A/Bs in Press, then they should so.

For that hypothetical to be equivalent to what wisefella did, you'd have to show proof that the switch was done explicitly to try and lose games.

It is pretty funny that the name of the post is "...is a classless punk"  Talk about being classy!

Also, nobody raised a big stink about what Tanner (I believe) or Tmacfan (I get the two confused some of the time) did with his Duke team.  Starting 5 consisted of Walk-ons.

Posted by ardthomp on 11/1/2010 3:53:00 PM (view original):
It is pretty funny that the name of the post is "...is a classless punk"  Talk about being classy!

Also, nobody raised a big stink about what Tanner (I believe) or Tmacfan (I get the two confused some of the time) did with his Duke team.  Starting 5 consisted of Walk-ons.

What perceived injustice was that person rallying against?  That's total horsepucky as well.

The reality of RPI is that the impact of a conference mate's OOC record represents about 5% of a team's RPI if they are in the same division.  The impact of a conference mate's OOC record represents about 2.5% of a team's RPI if they are in the other division.  The impact of their conference record is irrelavant on RPI.  The impact of a conference mate's nonconference OWP (the records of their OOC opponent's) represents about .4% of a conference mate's RPI.

Rolling up, the combined nonconference records of all 11 of your conference mates represents about 42% of a team's RPI (again...more weight given to those in your half of the conference.) 

Posted by udm_mike on 11/1/2010 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ardthomp on 11/1/2010 3:53:00 PM (view original):
It is pretty funny that the name of the post is "...is a classless punk"  Talk about being classy!

Also, nobody raised a big stink about what Tanner (I believe) or Tmacfan (I get the two confused some of the time) did with his Duke team.  Starting 5 consisted of Walk-ons.

What perceived injustice was that person rallying against?  That's total horsepucky as well.

I don't know the whole story, so I won't speculate.  But, I was just saying it was basically the same thing.  I do believe that coach got a warning from Seble as well though.

I don't agree with destroying a team, but I also feel like if I pay for a product I can run my team how I want.  At least he got Seble's attention?

Posted by ardthomp on 11/1/2010 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by udm_mike on 11/1/2010 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ardthomp on 11/1/2010 3:53:00 PM (view original):
It is pretty funny that the name of the post is "...is a classless punk"  Talk about being classy!

Also, nobody raised a big stink about what Tanner (I believe) or Tmacfan (I get the two confused some of the time) did with his Duke team.  Starting 5 consisted of Walk-ons.

What perceived injustice was that person rallying against?  That's total horsepucky as well.

I don't know the whole story, so I won't speculate.  But, I was just saying it was basically the same thing.  I do believe that coach got a warning from Seble as well though.

I don't agree with destroying a team, but I also feel like if I pay for a product I can run my team how I want.  At least he got Seble's attention?

As has been explained before, not every instance of someone behaving like that is known about and gets publicized. It's not unlike real life ... some people cheat on their spouse and end up on the front page of a gossip magazine. Others do the same and never get called out. Do you actually think that, "Hey, person X didn't get caught/called out, so I shouldn't have either!"

Uh, no. He did something wrong. He got called out for it.

And no, you can't simply do anything you want simply because you've paid for the season. There is a basic TOS that all of us have to abide by, and he did not.

special unique circumstances sometimes require special unique mediation/judgment, seems like wis should step in here, which is what they did. the late timing is the only thing about this situation that seems like it obviously should have been handled differently, if wis was aware...