Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2017 8:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kobo on 1/8/2017 2:53:00 AM (view original):
By the way, if you don't play Div. 1, why the phuck are you posting your opinion in a thread you know nothing about?

Because you know the answer. Or, even if you didn't, it would have taken less time to find out than it did to start this thread.

Then stay out of the thread...you have no clue what we are discussing. You have zero ZERO experience in Div 1 and almost none in Div 3. Mind your own damn business and learn the game at Div 3...idiot!

The problem that coaches who actually play at Div 1 (as opposed to trolls who haven't a clue) have with the ees is that it quite clearly punishes success which is counter-intuitive. I think a number of things could be done quite easily which would restore balance to the game without returning to the situation whereby A+ teams could simply divi. up the 5 star guys and leave the left overs for everyone else....year after year. That WAS a problem and I appreciate that 3.0 has addressed that.

But the ee situation is too much. It places those coaches at a competitive disadvantage and that is not the right way to bring about greater parity. One way to improve this situation would be to significantly reduce the number of early and first cycle signings. Something should also be done in terms of opening up a window where attention points could be spent for only teams with ees, prior to the 2nd round of recruiting. Anyone who is not trying to be a jackass can see that the game as it is right now has less appeal b/c there is less strategy and more blind luck involved. I think that is why the number of customers is dropping.

But, if history is any indicator, I suspect that WIS staff will address this and a few other issues. I am just disappointed that they are not giving us any feedback as to when to expect improvements.

Posted by kobo on 1/9/2017 12:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2017 8:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kobo on 1/8/2017 2:53:00 AM (view original):
By the way, if you don't play Div. 1, why the phuck are you posting your opinion in a thread you know nothing about?

Because you know the answer. Or, even if you didn't, it would have taken less time to find out than it did to start this thread.

Then stay out of the thread...you have no clue what we are discussing. You have zero ZERO experience in Div 1 and almost none in Div 3. Mind your own damn business and learn the game at Div 3...idiot!

So you think playing HD is equivalent to performing heart surgery? That it requires many years of schooling to do it properly?

It's a goddam internet sim game.

Jump on off that high horse. It took me one season to see who WASN'T signed to know that there are "serviceable" players available. Dumbass.

mike, you don't have the experience to assess what a serviceable D1 player is. it's okay--before they play D1, no one does. unfortunately, your opinion on this matter is all conjecture, and in practice it does not hold up. i wish you could try D1 today and experience this, as i believe it would change your mind.

what's left at that point in recruiting are players human D2 schools did not pursue--this means they are not good enough to be backups on a D1 team.

That's sort of incorrect. In practice, you're right. I haven't played D1 since 2006.

However, I can look at your SC roster and see you play triangle/man. I can see you have 8 players over 80 ATH. You ran a 9 man rotation and only 2 below 80 ATH actually played but not much.

I could go on but one doesn't HAVE to play D1 to look at rosters, styles, playing time, etc, etc.

So, tell me, do you think I could figure out what a "serviceable" player would be for your SC team? It's just number evaluation.

With all due respect, you are one of the reasonable D1 users so a legit discussion can be had, I think that's where the disconnect is.

Many think you have to be in D1 to understand D1 problems. I don't think the advantage is had in building a roster. Anyone can look at rosters and try to "copycat" them. The real advantage the good users have is in how they utilize that roster. I'm essentially clueless in that aspect and freely admit it. But I can look at numbers and say "Well, all his playing time goes to 80 ATH/65 SPD at G and 75 D/85 LP at C." The numbers are not secrets.

When I think about whether a player is serviceable in DI, I think of what he needs to positive attributes - for a big the key cores are ATH, REB, DEF. Some but not all of my bigs need LP, so I can take a guy who will be a glue player who has enuf ATH/REB/DEF but weak LP. I also dont want a big who is terrible in BH and PASS. So, a big with 75D and 85P might be serviceable - but he isnt if his ATH isnt okay and he isnt if his BH and PASS are awful.

All of the ratings for any team are of course out there and anyone can see them as Mike says. Some people write XLS to value the different ratings. I just look at them and know them when I see em.

What numbers go here? Depends some on what team I am coaching. For my long term Maryland team - the one team I kept - I need certain levels. For hawaii where I just started this season I'll take the best I can get. Of course, Hawaii wont have EEs for a long time if ever.

To be fair, the unsigned/drop down D1s I saw at the end of my first season might not fit every system. And, of course, none would ever sniff EE-status. But there were "serviceable" players available for most systems and could hold down 10th-12th man on the roster spots.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/9/2017 9:26:00 AM (view original):
That's sort of incorrect. In practice, you're right. I haven't played D1 since 2006.

However, I can look at your SC roster and see you play triangle/man. I can see you have 8 players over 80 ATH. You ran a 9 man rotation and only 2 below 80 ATH actually played but not much.

I could go on but one doesn't HAVE to play D1 to look at rosters, styles, playing time, etc, etc.

So, tell me, do you think I could figure out what a "serviceable" player would be for your SC team? It's just number evaluation.

and my SC team sucked. now, that one was on me, because of the roster makeup i chose (redshirting a guy + an ineligible) and because we had one EE and it was a predictable one...but the chips didn't fall in my favor on the guys i set up as backup recruits, and unfortunately, I was not able to replace that EE with a serviceable backup, so i ended up short 1 player from what i planned. i would have loved to get a guy who could have met some basic minimums in core areas to provide some more minutes off the bench and keep my starters from being so tired all season, but no one was out there after the first couple cycles of session 2. most specifically, any players who meet the general D1 minimum thresholds for ATH/SPD/DEF were gone.

serviceable has to mean someone who can be an 8th or 9th man as a junior and senior.

Just a question from someone who has never sniffed above D3 so forgive me. Who are taking the serviceable players you guys are talking about?

D2 teams

failure to open up recruits in session 1 essentially means that any serviceable recruit who has a preference of "Early" or 'End of 1st Session' will be impossible to sign before a D2 team, since they will sign in the first cycle of session 2 when sign-ability is unlocked to D2 teams. Many "Whenever" and even some "Late" recruits sign the first or second cycle of Session 2, so these recruits are a total guessing game at that point.

obviously everyone should prepare backups so you don't have to open up so many new recruits in Session 2, but the point is that it is just not always possible to the extent some posters seem to surmise, certainly in cases of surprise EE (and low scholarships) or in coaching change situations.

Unintended comedy!

The same guy who wrote this: "Then stay out of the thread...you have no clue what we are discussing. You have zero ZERO experience in Div 1 and almost none in Div 3. Mind your own damn business and learn the game at Div 3...idiot!" then proceeded to display his own misunderstanding of the game: "[EE's] quite clearly punishes success which is counter-intuitive." I don't think he has been following the forums, where that old "punishment" argument has been discredited long ago.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 1/9/2017 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/9/2017 9:26:00 AM (view original):
That's sort of incorrect. In practice, you're right. I haven't played D1 since 2006.

However, I can look at your SC roster and see you play triangle/man. I can see you have 8 players over 80 ATH. You ran a 9 man rotation and only 2 below 80 ATH actually played but not much.

I could go on but one doesn't HAVE to play D1 to look at rosters, styles, playing time, etc, etc.

So, tell me, do you think I could figure out what a "serviceable" player would be for your SC team? It's just number evaluation.

and my SC team sucked. now, that one was on me, because of the roster makeup i chose (redshirting a guy + an ineligible) and because we had one EE and it was a predictable one...but the chips didn't fall in my favor on the guys i set up as backup recruits, and unfortunately, I was not able to replace that EE with a serviceable backup, so i ended up short 1 player from what i planned. i would have loved to get a guy who could have met some basic minimums in core areas to provide some more minutes off the bench and keep my starters from being so tired all season, but no one was out there after the first couple cycles of session 2. most specifically, any players who meet the general D1 minimum thresholds for ATH/SPD/DEF were gone.

Would you like for me to look at your better teams?

Seriously, it's just number evaluation. I think our idea of "serviceable" is widely different. I'm more along the lines of what fdny posted. I think of an end of the bench guy. Dropping 10-12 minutes a game and not killing you. Not a starter or even a 6th man his Junior year. Just someone who can give you double digit minutes his entire 4 year career.

I also think the people complaining the loudest also have a higher definition of "serviceable" than most of us.

Arizona, motion/man. Essentially a 9 man rotation with 3 others getting minimal minutes.

Towles doesn't have the SPD to play.
Burbank is the worst with low ATH/SPD/DEF.
Haubrich is a FR who just doesn't have the BH/P/SPD of the other guards.

Truth is, it's a guy like Burbank that I think is "serviceable". He's out of place on your team but he's not terrible. He's not in the ballpark athletically of your other guys and well below average in D but he's B+ in IQ. He's also OK as a BH/P and has 5th best PER on your team.