Posted by tarvolon on 4/23/2013 8:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 4/23/2013 12:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by milwood on 4/22/2013 9:50:00 PM (view original):
I recently had a similar experience except my player was a junior!  I got the warning and upped his SH minutes from 0 to 5 and he still flunked.  I know this is my fault since he flunked as a sophomore too. 

Okay, so I don't mean to jump on the negative bandwagon here, but what would have been an acceptable response?  It sounds to me like you want them to not only apologize for their egregious error, but to reinstate your player.  I don't think CS researches how long someone has been a paying customer, nor should they.  A newb deserves the same amount of courtesy as a veteran (maybe even a little bit more).  Unfortunately, it seems like that level of courtesy is virtually non-existent.

I absolutely agree with this.  A ticket should be handled equally whether a coach has played one game or ten calendar years.  Shouldn't matter.  But we all know that it does matter.  There are certain coaches who totally have Seble's ear and seem to have an undue amount of influence with him.  Not right.  At all.

I disagree with both of you here. Should a ticket be handled the same as far as courtesy goes? Of course. Should a ticket be handled the same as far as information goes? Certainly not. A brand new coach would likely see as helpful an answer that older coaches see as patronizing. The veteran coach isn't going to want some comment on general strategy copied from the player's guide but an explanation of why a previously effective strategy is no longer (and in this case, I do think built-in randomness is an acceptable answer). 

Now of course CS doesn't need to do research to figure out what type of coach they're dealing with. But I think the level of detail provided in asking the question is usually a good guide to which kind of answer is more helpful. 

Actually, your answer is what I had in my head, just didn't express it as eloquently as you did.  I should have been more clear when I posted that, but this is pretty much what I meant.  When I said a ticket should be handled equally, I meant courtesy-wise.  And the detail provided should give CS a reason to answer some tickets a little more in-depth than others. 

I guess what I was trying to say was, given two identical tickets, CS should probably be providing two identical answers.  Give a detailed ticket versus a generic ticket, then yes, the detailed question should get a more detailed answer.  So I think we're in agreement here, you just spelled it out a lot better than I did.

Posted by tarvolon on 4/22/2013 5:23:00 PM (view original):
JMO, hughes, but I find the first comments condescending to an experienced coach because it doesn't tell him anything he didn't already know. He's aware he needed to increase the SH minutes at mid-term. He said in his ticket (presumably) that he increased them at mid-term. And just the comment that it's best to increase SH minutes to improve grades is painfully obvious.  To me, that answer is akin to saying "well, it's obvious that you've never played this game before, so. . . ." 

Obviously, a lot of people in this thread have read it quite differently. The second statement doesn't read as condescending to me. But the first response is written as if sly is a complete moron. I'm guessing that's what irked him, and it probably would've irked me too.

FWIW, I might be more sensitive to this just because I teach freshman logic and spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to remind students of basic rules without making them feel like they're in kindergarten. 

He UPGRADED it BACK to 5 from a value that was lower .. so YES, he DID NEED to HEAR that.

5 Minutes is NOT enough if you are at 2.1 in part of your Freshmen year with less than a 2.38 for your High School GPA.
=======================
So you don't think I am making this up, here is EXACTLY what he posted in the first post:

"Recently in Rupp I had a FR player become ineligible because he received a 1.9 GPA in his final term. In his first 2 terms with 5 mins of SH this player got GPAs of 2.7 and 3.4 so I decided to bump down his SH in an attempt to get his ratings to improve faster as this guy has the ability to be a 200+ growth and 900 player by the time his career is over. In the third term his GPA dropped to 2.1 so I figured that if I simply move the SH back to 5 mins like it had been the previous 2 terms that at the very worst it would hold steady at 2.1 and figured more than likely it would go up to the 2.5-2.7 range"

If you had a 3.4 GPA with 5 SH minutes in your first semester? I think it's reasonable to believe that 5 minutes would do in the second semester too, and it has nothing to do with whether 5 is a low or high value. I don't think thinking that makes sly a moron or a noob that has to be taught the very basics of the game. There are certainly folks in this thread who disagree and have made some excellent points, but this I'll stand by (even if I would've increased it to more than 5 myself)