I can't understand what int'l recruits are saying Topic

Is that true, that you can go from leading to "To Late..." without hearing you're behind?  I thought a change had been made to prevent that. 

The details are -- I first had the indecipherable message from the OP.  Then, without doing anything got the "Coach, you my best school I play basket. I need wait for sign so I say yes. Hope sign come soon."  Which made me suspect my opponent (Miss St.) put in some effort.  As I was fighting for someone else at the same time, I hoped against hope that this message was as good as it sounded and I was still in the lead, and did not put in any more effort.  4-5 cycles later I got the Too Late email, but it turned out Syracuse had pounced from the blue and outspent us both.  As I was out of money and it was overnight, I didn't notice how many cycles before actually signing him Syracuse showed up.

So, to conclude: either A) I went from leading to Too Late... without ever hearing I was behind, or more likely: B)  "Coach, you my best school I play basket. I need wait for sign so I say yes. Hope sign come soon" means you're losing -- which is stupid. 
6/18/2012 6:45 PM
no, you could easily have gone from leading to too late if Syracuse spent big enough. Unless that was changed...I've had this happen to me before.
6/18/2012 6:52 PM
Now, I've heard from Seble that they want to keep some uncertainty in there, because 17 year-olds don't always tell the truth, beat around the bush, etc.  That's fine.  But recruiting happens to be a very specific, mathematically-based operation wherein we are not only literally buying players' feelings, but can reasonably calculate how much of their feelings we've bought compared to our opponents.  So I say to Seble -- it has to be one or the other: if you want recruiting to be based on numbers, then it's disingenuous to make the outcomes indecipherable.  Otherwise, don't make recruiting based on math.  It's like telling ten kids that if you take 5 apples, add 8 apples, and subtract 2 apples -- you'll have somewhere between 7 and 13 apples and we'll just find out whether any of you go hungry.  Either pit us against each other in a game-theory-based arena while giving us occasional, reliable updates -- or don't.  But you can't mix them; then the whole thing becomes incomprehensible.
6/18/2012 6:55 PM
if it's appreciably beyond signing period, i.e. 24 hours or more, then it's probably the case that Cuse put a lot of effort in at once and simply steamrolled you and Moo St. for the kid all in one cycle.
6/18/2012 9:47 PM
Amen, Jeff.
6/18/2012 10:53 PM
Posted by jeffdrayer on 6/18/2012 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Now, I've heard from Seble that they want to keep some uncertainty in there, because 17 year-olds don't always tell the truth, beat around the bush, etc.  That's fine.  But recruiting happens to be a very specific, mathematically-based operation wherein we are not only literally buying players' feelings, but can reasonably calculate how much of their feelings we've bought compared to our opponents.  So I say to Seble -- it has to be one or the other: if you want recruiting to be based on numbers, then it's disingenuous to make the outcomes indecipherable.  Otherwise, don't make recruiting based on math.  It's like telling ten kids that if you take 5 apples, add 8 apples, and subtract 2 apples -- you'll have somewhere between 7 and 13 apples and we'll just find out whether any of you go hungry.  Either pit us against each other in a game-theory-based arena while giving us occasional, reliable updates -- or don't.  But you can't mix them; then the whole thing becomes incomprehensible.
one could argue that more fuzziness and uncertainty would improve the game - just saying
6/19/2012 11:43 AM
Posted by jeffdrayer on 6/18/2012 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Now, I've heard from Seble that they want to keep some uncertainty in there, because 17 year-olds don't always tell the truth, beat around the bush, etc.  That's fine.  But recruiting happens to be a very specific, mathematically-based operation wherein we are not only literally buying players' feelings, but can reasonably calculate how much of their feelings we've bought compared to our opponents.  So I say to Seble -- it has to be one or the other: if you want recruiting to be based on numbers, then it's disingenuous to make the outcomes indecipherable.  Otherwise, don't make recruiting based on math.  It's like telling ten kids that if you take 5 apples, add 8 apples, and subtract 2 apples -- you'll have somewhere between 7 and 13 apples and we'll just find out whether any of you go hungry.  Either pit us against each other in a game-theory-based arena while giving us occasional, reliable updates -- or don't.  But you can't mix them; then the whole thing becomes incomprehensible.
Perfectly said.
6/19/2012 12:11 PM
Posted by girt25 on 6/19/2012 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jeffdrayer on 6/18/2012 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Now, I've heard from Seble that they want to keep some uncertainty in there, because 17 year-olds don't always tell the truth, beat around the bush, etc.  That's fine.  But recruiting happens to be a very specific, mathematically-based operation wherein we are not only literally buying players' feelings, but can reasonably calculate how much of their feelings we've bought compared to our opponents.  So I say to Seble -- it has to be one or the other: if you want recruiting to be based on numbers, then it's disingenuous to make the outcomes indecipherable.  Otherwise, don't make recruiting based on math.  It's like telling ten kids that if you take 5 apples, add 8 apples, and subtract 2 apples -- you'll have somewhere between 7 and 13 apples and we'll just find out whether any of you go hungry.  Either pit us against each other in a game-theory-based arena while giving us occasional, reliable updates -- or don't.  But you can't mix them; then the whole thing becomes incomprehensible.
Perfectly said.
+1
6/19/2012 12:35 PM
You guys think inside the box too much...my solution works better than touching up email messages...just saying
6/19/2012 1:00 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 6/19/2012 1:00:00 PM (view original):
You guys think inside the box too much...my solution works better than touching up email messages...just saying
Your "solution" always works better than everything else ever in the history of the entire everness.
6/19/2012 1:02 PM
Posted by isack24 on 6/19/2012 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 6/19/2012 1:00:00 PM (view original):
You guys think inside the box too much...my solution works better than touching up email messages...just saying
Your "solution" always works better than everything else ever in the history of the entire everness.
K, well break out your decoder pin, Encyclopedia Brown and enjoy/decipher those emails...
6/19/2012 1:05 PM

I don't even think your idea was bad.  I was just commenting generally.

6/19/2012 1:33 PM
Fair enough, and I was just responding the way that I saw fit....they were both IV posts with legitimate sarcasm drip...
6/19/2012 1:44 PM
Posted by isack24 on 6/19/2012 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 6/19/2012 1:00:00 PM (view original):
You guys think inside the box too much...my solution works better than touching up email messages...just saying
Your "solution" always works better than everything else ever in the history of the entire everness.
This was pretty funny.
6/19/2012 2:03 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 6/19/2012 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 6/19/2012 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 6/19/2012 1:00:00 PM (view original):
You guys think inside the box too much...my solution works better than touching up email messages...just saying
Your "solution" always works better than everything else ever in the history of the entire everness.
K, well break out your decoder pin, Encyclopedia Brown and enjoy/decipher those emails...
The Encyclopedia Brown reference was a nice touch also, kudos!
6/19/2012 2:04 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
I can't understand what int'l recruits are saying Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.