Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 4:48:00 PM (view original):
Wow. You used a lot of words to cover up that you said something incorrect. (Some big words too. Impressive!)

You said resources. APs count as recruiting resources. You don't get the same amount.

Thanks for playing.

I said exactly what I meant to say, and it’s not incorrect. Your attempt to obfuscate the issue (which is maintaining competitiveness for top commodities) is lame, because your analogy relies on a per day distribution of resources. At best, it only partially applies, because regarding the bulk of resources, they are distributed per scholarship, not per day. You get them later, but you get all of them. And the ones that are distributed per day are already weighted appropriately, giving your analogy very little weight at all. You’ve deserved your poor marks. I know you’d rather shoot for zingers and gotchas than participate in a grown up discussion, but at least try to make them coherent.

I'll try again for the folks who are a little slow.

Your coworker is paid $2,000 at the beginning of the month. Every day of the month he also gets free Chipotle.

You get paid $1,000 at the beginning of the month and $1,000 at the end. However, during the first 20 days of the month you only get a free unsweetened Iced Tea. The last 10 days of the month you get Chipotle.

Would you say you both were compensated equally?

Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 5:07:00 PM (view original):
I'll try again for the folks who are a little slow.

Your coworker is paid $2,000 at the beginning of the month. Every day of the month he also gets free Chipotle.

You get paid $1,000 at the beginning of the month and $1,000 at the end. However, during the first 20 days of the month you only get a free unsweetened Iced Tea. The last 10 days of the month you get Chipotle.

Would you say you both were compensated equally?

So my co-worker gets 20 extra days of free salmonella? I’ll take that deal.

He gets the veggie bowl.

E. Coli, then

Posted by johnsensing on 11/1/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):
My god, the straw men. There are so many of them. No one still playing has ever taken the position that "I don't like risk, I only like reward," or "I don't like a game of probabilities, I want to play a game of absolutes." When mike and koop make these types of arguments, they should lose credibility with everyone on these boards -- because they aren't defending the game against the actual attacks of people, they're defending it against what they wish those attacks were. That is a sign of weakness. If you're going to argue with someone, at least be honest enough to respond to their actual arguments.

I just saw this.

I agree, it's a pretty lazy argument but it helps fit the narrative. I think the risk of losing credibility is pretty low. Not much danger there.

Recruiting really good players gets rewarded, no?
However, the risk exists that you will only get them for 1-3 seasons, no?

Has anyone ******* that they have too many good players for too many seasons? No?

Crawl back in your hole, JSS. There's a reason I blocked you. You're respected by the masses but dirt is insulted when I say "you're as dumb as dirt." People don't have to actually use the words "I don't like risk, I only like reward" to say it.

Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 11/1/2017 2:48:00 PM (view original):
My god, the straw men. There are so many of them. No one still playing has ever taken the position that "I don't like risk, I only like reward," or "I don't like a game of probabilities, I want to play a game of absolutes." When mike and koop make these types of arguments, they should lose credibility with everyone on these boards -- because they aren't defending the game against the actual attacks of people, they're defending it against what they wish those attacks were. That is a sign of weakness. If you're going to argue with someone, at least be honest enough to respond to their actual arguments.

I just saw this.

I agree, it's a pretty lazy argument but it helps fit the narrative. I think the risk of losing credibility is pretty low. Not much danger there.

“It’s not a straw man to note that zorzii’s constant complaint on this issue breaks down to thinking it’s unfair that some teams lose lots of the types of commodities exposed to early entry possibility, and some teams don’t. That is fundamentally a problem with probability, based directly from what he’s said today.”

Speaking of lazy... opting for sycophantic snuggles now, instead of grown up discussion.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting really good players gets rewarded, no?
However, the risk exists that you will only get them for 1-3 seasons, no?

Has anyone ******* that they have too many good players for too many seasons? No?

Crawl back in your hole, JSS. There's a reason I blocked you. You're respected by the masses but dirt is insulted when I say "you're as dumb as dirt." People don't have to actually use the words "I don't like risk, I only like reward" to say it.

You don't need to keep telling him you blocked him. He probably saw it the 8 other times you've brought it up.

Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting really good players gets rewarded, no?
However, the risk exists that you will only get them for 1-3 seasons, no?

Has anyone ******* that they have too many good players for too many seasons? No?

Crawl back in your hole, JSS. There's a reason I blocked you. You're respected by the masses but dirt is insulted when I say "you're as dumb as dirt." People don't have to actually use the words "I don't like risk, I only like reward" to say it.

You don't need to keep telling him you blocked him. He probably saw it the 8 other times you've brought it up.

And speaking of grown up discussion.

Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting really good players gets rewarded, no?
However, the risk exists that you will only get them for 1-3 seasons, no?

Has anyone ******* that they have too many good players for too many seasons? No?

Crawl back in your hole, JSS. There's a reason I blocked you. You're respected by the masses but dirt is insulted when I say "you're as dumb as dirt." People don't have to actually use the words "I don't like risk, I only like reward" to say it.

You don't need to keep telling him you blocked him. He probably saw it the 8 other times you've brought it up.

And speaking of grown up discussion.

I'll say it as many times as I feel like it, thank you very much.

Now go give him a big hug.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 5:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/1/2017 5:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/1/2017 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Recruiting really good players gets rewarded, no?
However, the risk exists that you will only get them for 1-3 seasons, no?

Has anyone ******* that they have too many good players for too many seasons? No?

Crawl back in your hole, JSS. There's a reason I blocked you. You're respected by the masses but dirt is insulted when I say "you're as dumb as dirt." People don't have to actually use the words "I don't like risk, I only like reward" to say it.

You don't need to keep telling him you blocked him. He probably saw it the 8 other times you've brought it up.

And speaking of grown up discussion.

I'll say it as many times as I feel like it, thank you very much.

Now go give him a big hug.

I just remember you mocking people who said they blocked you. Pretty funny.

At best, it only partially applies, because regarding the bulk of resources, they are distributed per scholarship, not per day.

That is completely false. AP has recruiting value (impacts the recruits decision on who to sign with) and I'm pretty certain it has a significant impact on the outcome of who wins/loses since what you think is the bulk of resources (recruiting $$$) is essentially capped at 1 CV/20 HVs.

The coach who has an EE is significantly short changed by losing the player, less APs, AND lost opportunity to replace that player with a significantly smaller recruiting pool. While YOU may think that is balanced and good for the game, I'm betting some others don't (and I'm pretty sure you don't decide what is ultimately deemed fair and just).

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/1/2017 6:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 11/1/2017 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by l80r20 on 11/1/2017 12:09:00 PM (view original):
"I am only top 165 this season because EES are not fair."

"Elite talent is a commodity. It costs what it costs. You know the risks when you recruit elite talent, and everyone plays under the same conditions. It is not unfair."

Those two posts separate the wheat from the chaff.

As usual, spud misses the point. In any event, 90 on the EE board is not "elite talent." Although I do agree that "fairness" is the wrong metric to be looking at here, since it's entirely subjective.

Two easy changes remove this issue, and also (much more importantly) make it easier for coaches to move to new programs and recruit in session 2: (1) lessen the comparative power/value of APs; (2) make many recruits have a "late" signing preference. Boom -- problem solved.

LOL, you're such a moron, still seeing ghosts. I haven't posted in this thread anywhere.

By the way, understanding the risk/reward of your strategies for recruiting a valuable commodity is a sound idea, and when you're older you may understand it. If you did understand it, you would realize that EE's are not a problem except to such as zorzii, who expect to practically be indemnified for zany EE's. I think Seble understands this, too, and will hopefully leave well enough alone.

Cheers!

Go get help.