hmmmm... heres a thought....

why does ivan trust so fully that the other dude gave him corrrect info on the amount of recruiting effeort.... but then lied about whether he used boosters?

wouldnt it be easier/ more likely that he lied about his recruiting effort than that he used boosters (and got away with it)?

keep in mind, as was noted in the discussion we dont have ANY info on WHEN the recruiting effort was spent - and who was leading - and we KNOW that that matters

and, as oldave points out, it could be that the effort spent by Yale is understated - which could make sense as a tactic - tell a potential rival that you beat him with just $x when it really took $1.2x.....

I just like that somebody made a Stratego reference.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/01/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 12/31/2009
hey kids (i only read most of the first 2 pages, so i am only including the OP and colonels in the mix). you really need to grow up. both of you don't understand d1 recruiting anywhere near the level of those you are bashing. just because you don't like daalter's and zhawk's answer, doesn't justify you acting like children. seriously, grow up. I'm not saying he got out and out screwed, I think he's got a legitimate gripe as to why he didn't get the guy and why the other team did. Guys like zhawks and dalter are basically telling him that his gripe isn't legitimate, and I've seen this gang "you're wrong, we're right" mentality first hand before, I just thought I'd pipe up and let everyone know that I thought crazyivan had a legit gripe. I would like to see more of an EA NCAAF/NCAAB styled recruiting myself, but that's really wishful thinking.

and yeah, i would agree the case is borderline. but in no way out of the realm of reason for yale to win (or lose, i forget who was who). accept the FACT that your understanding is not up to the level you need to analyze the situation. i do it all the time, i expect every other coach in the game does it as well. its time for you to join the rest of us - and accept there is just a hell of a lot more you don't know than you do.

With all of your D1 success I think I should default to your knowledge on the subject from now on, please accept my apology.

Thanks oldave. I appreciate someone actually putting some thought into the situation.
I wasn't looking for sympathy - just trying to better understand this game. It seems that the only thing that a coach can do to improve his team is better recruiting and wise scheduling. Gameplanning and practices seem pointless - since the advent of potential.

Quick question and I'm outta here...til the bowl games end, anyway.

Does anyone know if anyone employed with WIS (or HD, specifically) play this game?

I'd like to see how well they do - when they should have a better insight into the game than the rest of us.

Admin (Tarek Kamil) used to have several teams, but I'm not sure (and neither is anyone else) about seble.

But you're making an assumption: that someone who works for/runs this site would play to win. If I were in charge of WiS, I'd have some teams, but I'd use most if not all of them as a sort of permanent beta test - despite their better insight into the game, they might be more interested in directly attacking the parts they don't understand, even at the cost of winning.

I think it's a safe assumption that I wasn't referring to their 'test' teams.

It'd be damn near impossible to try to determine what they were testing, anyway.

And I hope to God that's his test team...or I'd close the friggin' site down if I couldn't win - knowing the ratios and formulas that make a great team.

in the old days, lots of staff would play and im pretty sure they , for the most part, played to win.

tarek kamil (the original "admin") played 167 seasons and if i recall he had something like 5 or 6 teams in his heyday. he won only one national championship, but he did win nearly two-thirds of his games and won 77 division titles in his 167 seasons.

i have often wondered if his failure win multple championships and dominate the game like some of our elite coaches have was a result of possibly a half hearted effort most of the time? or whether he really didnt understand the game as well as some of the uberusers? and that lead me to question wheterh maybe he was just the "idea guy" behind the original game design and he had others do the actual programming? that idea certianly fits with the conflicting, ambiguous and occasionnally just flat out wrong answers he gave regarding key questions about the game.

there are even rules regarding employee play. one is that they must identify themselves as sitestaff at all times. (i believe there was a bit of controversy abot some lower level sitestaff playing under alias back in the day) another rule is that if you face a stiestaff in the NT, you can choose to take the rewards points that you would have recieved if you had won the game, but there are a few stipulations that i cant totally recall.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldave on 1/01/2010

in the old days, lots of staff would play and im pretty sure they , for the most part, played to win.

tarek kamil (the original "admin") played 167 seasons and if i recall he had something like 5 or 6 teams in his heyday. he won only one national championship, but he did win nearly two-thirds of his games and won 77 division titles in his 167 seasons.

i have often wondered if his failure win multple championships and dominate the game like some of our elite coaches have was a result of possibly a half hearted effort most of the time? or whether he really didnt understand the game as well as some of the uberusers? and that lead me to question wheterh maybe he was just the "idea guy" behind the original game design and he had others do the actual programming? that idea certianly fits with the conflicting, ambiguous and occasionnally just flat out wrong answers he gave regarding key questions about the game.

there are even rules regarding employee play. one is that they must identify themselves as sitestaff at all times. (i believe there was a bit of controversy abot some lower level sitestaff playing under alias back in the day) another rule is that if you face a stiestaff in the NT, you can choose to take the rewards points that you would have recieved if you had won the game, but there are a few stipulations that i cant totally recall.

I forget which admin it was, but about 5-6 years ago, an admin was playing under the name irish99 in Gridiron Dynasty and he was tearing it up...everyone was lauding his success and wondering why he was so good, and then it came out that he was an admin...jconte I think. I guess I have a problem with admins playing the actual games...its a bit of a conflict of interests.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 1/01/2010
With all of your D1 success I think I should default to your knowledge on the subject from now on, please accept my apology.

HD knowledge has virtually nothing to do with this topic...something you have a hard time understanding. Crazyivan has a legitimate gripe and that's practically all I'm saying. You and dalter are seemingly backing WIS here because you don't like crazyivan's tone/stance....hmmmmmm.....where have I seen/heard that before? Give the guy his due...he may have gotten jobbed a bit here...he didn't NOT get jobbed at all...which is what you cats are purporting.

It has nothing to do with tone. His tone didn't go sour until after he asked his initial, normal question and didn't like the fact that people weren't agreeing with him. (And by the way, he actually came around later in the thread and accepted the explanation. Imagine that.)

Furthermore, it absolutely requires a keen knowledge and understanding of DI recruiting to accurately answer his question. What exactly would you be basing your answer on ... the eyeball test? Poorly educated guess? Throwing darts at a dart board?

And lastly, to save yourself from (even more) future ridicule, you make yourself look like a clown by trying to paint Z and myself as WIS apologists. We are two of the people that have been the most active in arguing with WIS, stirring the pot and actively trying to get changes made in HD. So again, before you open your mouth, make sure you at least have a vague idea of what you're talking about.

I call you two guys like I see you. It doesn't really matter what you've done over the last 3, 4, 5 years or so, what matters is what I've seen PERSONALLY in the last month...and its a big smooch, smooch with WIS. The current state of matters is what's most important. Both of you guys think that any kind of dissenting opinion or opinions that you don't agree with are inherently wrong, and that really says enough about both of your guys' personalities. I've used the word closed-minded before and I think it fits here too. I'm not questioning the right or wrongness of what happened, I'm saying after analyzing the question as an objective human being, he seems to have a legitimate gripe, which you and zhawks tried to thwart IMMEDIATELY after he posted....you didn't even consider whether he had a legit gripe or not.

Also, the eye test matters. Let's say I'm a potential new customer prospecting the scene and I see a guy get beat out on recruiting that seems to have recruited harder than player B with a 1 or 2 half step letter grade difference, I'm going to second guess joining. Seeing guys like you back that kind of claim would probably stop me altogether.

I would like to see a more concrete recruiting system...its really quite a crapshoot as is. If it was more like the EA Sports format, I'd be happier...that makes sense to me...recruit a guy to your school based on prestige/location/coach prestige/coaching strategy/playing time, etc...have the 4 options hc visit, hc call, ac visit, ac call....give a team so many points based on prestige, schollies available, etc, and you have a better system than what's out there currently. Surprisingly, I find the current recruiting format to be unnecessarily complex...there's really a lot of coin flipping.