Posted by skinndogg on 9/28/2017 3:19:00 PM (view original):
As a C+ prestige, going all in on a top 50 player is really difficult. A+ can come along on day 2 and still easily bump you down to Moderate without you ever getting back up.

I know it is part of the game, and it's the same complaint as 2.0, but if A+ wants, A+ gets.

If you are promising as much as they are and have good preferences you can get a 20-30% chance on those players going against an A+. Not great odds, but better than 2.0.

Posted by skinndogg on 9/28/2017 3:19:00 PM (view original):
As a C+ prestige, going all in on a top 50 player is really difficult. A+ can come along on day 2 and still easily bump you down to Moderate without you ever getting back up.

I know it is part of the game, and it's the same complaint as 2.0, but if A+ wants, A+ gets.

Which means is you have any common sense at all you will be going after lower talent until you can bet to a B to B+ program.

Posted by mullycj on 9/28/2017 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinndogg on 9/28/2017 3:19:00 PM (view original):
As a C+ prestige, going all in on a top 50 player is really difficult. A+ can come along on day 2 and still easily bump you down to Moderate without you ever getting back up.

I know it is part of the game, and it's the same complaint as 2.0, but if A+ wants, A+ gets.

Which means is you have any common sense at all you will be going after lower talent until you can bet to a B to B+ program.

This pretty much sums it up. I think folks think its a failure to acquire talent ranked in the 15-25 range for their position, but its a necessity until your prestige is up there. You can still compete with those recruits, and you can make NTs with teams that have those type of recruits. You wont go far in the tourney, but it will at least build up your prestige.

Posted by crabman26 on 9/28/2017 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/28/2017 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinndogg on 9/28/2017 3:19:00 PM (view original):
As a C+ prestige, going all in on a top 50 player is really difficult. A+ can come along on day 2 and still easily bump you down to Moderate without you ever getting back up.

I know it is part of the game, and it's the same complaint as 2.0, but if A+ wants, A+ gets.

Which means is you have any common sense at all you will be going after lower talent until you can bet to a B to B+ program.

This pretty much sums it up. I think folks think its a failure to acquire talent ranked in the 15-25 range for their position, but its a necessity until your prestige is up there. You can still compete with those recruits, and you can make NTs with teams that have those type of recruits. You wont go far in the tourney, but it will at least build up your prestige.

By the way this is exactly the talent I coveted, even lower.

Posted by zorzii on 9/28/2017 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/28/2017 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/28/2017 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinndogg on 9/28/2017 3:19:00 PM (view original):
As a C+ prestige, going all in on a top 50 player is really difficult. A+ can come along on day 2 and still easily bump you down to Moderate without you ever getting back up.

I know it is part of the game, and it's the same complaint as 2.0, but if A+ wants, A+ gets.

Which means is you have any common sense at all you will be going after lower talent until you can bet to a B to B+ program.

This pretty much sums it up. I think folks think its a failure to acquire talent ranked in the 15-25 range for their position, but its a necessity until your prestige is up there. You can still compete with those recruits, and you can make NTs with teams that have those type of recruits. You wont go far in the tourney, but it will at least build up your prestige.

By the way this is exactly the talent I coveted, even lower.

Hmmm, unfortunately those are the breaks then. I know it sucks, Im probably about to lose a battle over a recruit I desperately need.

I try to avoid battles with humans almost to a fault, unless I know I can offer up a ton of minutes or starts...not sure what else to tell you.

Posted by crabman26 on 9/28/2017 5:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 9/28/2017 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/28/2017 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 9/28/2017 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinndogg on 9/28/2017 3:19:00 PM (view original):
As a C+ prestige, going all in on a top 50 player is really difficult. A+ can come along on day 2 and still easily bump you down to Moderate without you ever getting back up.

I know it is part of the game, and it's the same complaint as 2.0, but if A+ wants, A+ gets.

Which means is you have any common sense at all you will be going after lower talent until you can bet to a B to B+ program.

This pretty much sums it up. I think folks think its a failure to acquire talent ranked in the 15-25 range for their position, but its a necessity until your prestige is up there. You can still compete with those recruits, and you can make NTs with teams that have those type of recruits. You wont go far in the tourney, but it will at least build up your prestige.

By the way this is exactly the talent I coveted, even lower.

Hmmm, unfortunately those are the breaks then. I know it sucks, Im probably about to lose a battle over a recruit I desperately need.

I try to avoid battles with humans almost to a fault, unless I know I can offer up a ton of minutes or starts...not sure what else to tell you.

Once you hit Big Six, if it's full or close to it, with mid close, battles are inevitable. But still I gaged where I could battle really well and got the pit.

If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

The way sports works is at the end of the game if you have more points you win, so actually its exactly how sports work

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

The way sports works is at the end of the game if you have more points you win, so actually its exactly how sports work

Jets gained 600 total yards. Patriots gained 400 total yards. Who won the game?

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

It is a little silly to think that way, but keep in mind we are paying customers...we pay to play this game, I dont pay to watch actual sports (well you know, other than my cable bill). So the site cant just say screw everyone, this is how life and sports really is.

I have no clue what the correct solution is on this issue. I see both sides, it really does suck and can mess up your program if you strike out, the solution to that cant be to just go after the secondary guys or avoid all battles (which admittedly is pretty much my strategy).

Posted by crabman26 on 9/28/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

It is a little silly to think that way, but keep in mind we are paying customers...we pay to play this game, I dont pay to watch actual sports (well you know, other than my cable bill). So the site cant just say screw everyone, this is how life and sports really is.

I have no clue what the correct solution is on this issue. I see both sides, it really does suck and can mess up your program if you strike out, the solution to that cant be to just go after the secondary guys or avoid all battles (which admittedly is pretty much my strategy).

So since we're paying customers, shouldn't we auto-defeat every sim opponent?

These aren't good arguments dudes.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crabman26 on 9/28/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

It is a little silly to think that way, but keep in mind we are paying customers...we pay to play this game, I dont pay to watch actual sports (well you know, other than my cable bill). So the site cant just say screw everyone, this is how life and sports really is.

I have no clue what the correct solution is on this issue. I see both sides, it really does suck and can mess up your program if you strike out, the solution to that cant be to just go after the secondary guys or avoid all battles (which admittedly is pretty much my strategy).

So since we're paying customers, shouldn't we auto-defeat every sim opponent?

These aren't good arguments dudes.

No, because that would be boring, and not really related to this.

Fine, they are weak arguments....but if enough people are leaving, which it seems they are, then if you are running a site you should be worried.

Your argument stating "thats how its done in real life, deal with it" is not really a productive solution either. This game is far from real life...

Again, I am not for having the person putting in the most effort win all of the time, and I am generally on your side of this issue...but I feel something has to change or else folks will continue to leave, which sucks.

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

The way sports works is at the end of the game if you have more points you win, so actually its exactly how sports work

Jets gained 600 total yards. Patriots gained 400 total yards. Who won the game?

If the Pats score 60 points and the jets score 40, who wins?

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 9/28/2017 6:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 9/28/2017 6:32:00 PM (view original):
If a coach has done all they can, maxed out everything, given promises and got themselves to say 60%, and they don't get the player, what are they supposed to do. If they literally couldn't do anymore, and got a substantial lead in the battle only to lose how is that a good system? How is that good for game play or for business?

I am not saying that if you max everything out you automatically win, but if you max everything out, and have a big lead what's the point of even trying?

You're saying if it looks like you have the best chance to win, you should therefore automatically win.

That's silly. It's not how sports works.

The way sports works is at the end of the game if you have more points you win, so actually its exactly how sports work

Jets gained 600 total yards. Patriots gained 400 total yards. Who won the game?

If the Pats score 60 points and the jets score 40, who wins?

Clearly the Pats.

Now answer my question. Aw shucks, I'm a nice guy so I'll do it for you: the Jets seem to have a better chance if they gained that many more yards, but more info is needed since probability and results aren't the same thing.