How about the fact that he isn't guaranteed to come back for a 5th season? That should be good enough reason. How many more people would complain if he's listed as 2 season left and then leaves after 1...he could not make grades to be eligible for that 5th season or he could just decide not to return for a 5th season even though he's able to. I have a guy in D2 right now that is eligible for a 5th season but already told me he's not coming back. He cannot be listed as having 2 seasons left because its not a sure thing he sticks around for the second one, or even will be able to get a 5th season

Posted by phalla on 6/17/2013 11:28:00 AM (view original):
So we're back to smug and condescending again? Not very cool. Why the need to impune the poster like he's just not smart?

I haven't seen a sound argument yet why the SR transfer NQ shouldn't be shown as having 2 years of eligibility left.

And of course mrg1037 will now check out the transfers previous stats, but that doesn't change that his original assumption was quite reasonable.

And all this angst about sending in a ticket is ridiculous. Every user has the right to send a ticket if he would like clarification of something. 

Frankly this post is not very smart.  I didn't attack the OP or call him dumb, as you suggest.  I just don't like the idea that WIS should re-program something about the game to satiate one person's lack of knowledge.  He can send a ticket all he wants.

Several people made a similar point and the "whaa police" came out of the woodwork.  You realize it's possible to not get offended by everything you read on the internet right?

To parrot what many have said, WIS could do more to indicate he was a non-qualifier. 

But that said, I can't fathom recruiting any transfer (whether he was filler material or not) and not glancing at his collegiate profile, mainly because I would want to see what his offense and defense IQs were.

Posted by abitaamber on 6/17/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):
To parrot what many have said, WIS could do more to indicate he was a non-qualifier. 

But that said, I can't fathom recruiting any transfer (whether he was filler material or not) and not glancing at his collegiate profile, mainly because I would want to see what his offense and defense IQs were.

For what it's worth - even if I saw he was an old non qualifier, I'm not sure I would have assumed that trumped his listed 1 eligible year. As a D3 only coach all I knew about non qualifiers is that they don't matter in recruiting. In 15 seasons or so I never ran into a Sr/5 on any opponent's roster.

I think my record shows me as one of the more knowledgable D3 only coaches. Barring changes to how things are displayed, this will happen to a D3 coach again (though it might take a while since this is a rare situation). Hopefully the good that comes of this is that anyone who reads this thread won't have it happen to them.

Posted by fd343ny on 6/17/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Lets think about the lifecycle of a nonqualifier.

He appears like any other player with 4 years at the start - or should he start with 5?  If he goes DI, then he sits for a year.  Today, he comes back as a SO, showing as 3 years eligible if he transfers or is cut.  Should he show as 4 then?   A second season of 4 years eligible?  When does he experience the season in which his remaining years do not decline?  What should the programming do?

If he starts at 5 years eligible, does he go down to 4 if he gets his scores up?  Is 5 years eligible misleading since he can only play 4?

I dont think there is a great answer here - and I think what is done now is a good approach.  BUT, as noted above I think player "cards" should flag that a player was a nonqualifier or was a redshirt.  Add an icon that tells folks that info.

I agree that some indicators of status would help
 
but do those who think showing "1 year" eligible have a better plan - especially in the context of the life cycle of a player and how his years of eligibility will evolve over his career?  It isnt enough to say it should be "2" at this stage - what is the proposal for the entire life of the player?

Sounds like we all agree that the issue is relatively minor but confusing and could be completely remedied by putting an asterisk next to those players whose eligibility is in questions, depending on division and other unknown factors?  Only a baby boomer would suggest something is broken and not address fixing it, instead blaming the problem on someone who didn't know how to work around the broken system. 
   I too learned this the hard way but had nicer people to describe what happened.  If we could ban 3-4 people completely from the boards (and their multiple id's), we could go a long way in making this a more positive place. 

At the risk of being accused of impugning the OP yet again, I would suggest that he might have received fewer negative responses without the indignation over a mistake that he made..though to be fair that sentiment seems to be shared by a lot of posters ITT.

I guess I don't really see the need to encapsulate every possible eligibility scenario into a cheat-sheet for easy reference. 

Posted by fd343ny on 6/17/2013 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 6/17/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Lets think about the lifecycle of a nonqualifier.

He appears like any other player with 4 years at the start - or should he start with 5?  If he goes DI, then he sits for a year.  Today, he comes back as a SO, showing as 3 years eligible if he transfers or is cut.  Should he show as 4 then?   A second season of 4 years eligible?  When does he experience the season in which his remaining years do not decline?  What should the programming do?

If he starts at 5 years eligible, does he go down to 4 if he gets his scores up?  Is 5 years eligible misleading since he can only play 4?

I dont think there is a great answer here - and I think what is done now is a good approach.  BUT, as noted above I think player "cards" should flag that a player was a nonqualifier or was a redshirt.  Add an icon that tells folks that info.

I agree that some indicators of status would help
 
but do those who think showing "1 year" eligible have a better plan - especially in the context of the life cycle of a player and how his years of eligibility will evolve over his career?  It isnt enough to say it should be "2" at this stage - what is the proposal for the entire life of the player?

-Every high school senior is a 4
-After a non-qualifying season, a player should be listed as a 3* (the star indicating a possible additional year)
-He would progress to a 2*, then a 1* (which my player would have been when I recruited him)

I think that's a pretty simple solution. There are probably other solutions, this is just one suggestion.

Posted by killbatman on 6/17/2013 5:58:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being accused of impugning the OP yet again, I would suggest that he might have received fewer negative responses without the indignation over a mistake that he made..though to be fair that sentiment seems to be shared by a lot of posters ITT.

I guess I don't really see the need to encapsulate every possible eligibility scenario into a cheat-sheet for easy reference. 

Indignation? You may be reading a bit too much into this.

And you are knocking down a mighty tall straw man with that last sentence... all I want is a player's information page to not tell me things that are false.

Posted by mrg1037 on 6/17/2013 6:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by killbatman on 6/17/2013 5:58:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being accused of impugning the OP yet again, I would suggest that he might have received fewer negative responses without the indignation over a mistake that he made..though to be fair that sentiment seems to be shared by a lot of posters ITT.

I guess I don't really see the need to encapsulate every possible eligibility scenario into a cheat-sheet for easy reference. 

Indignation? You may be reading a bit too much into this.

And you are knocking down a mighty tall straw man with that last sentence... all I want is a player's information page to not tell me things that are false.

That last part is exactly what rubs me the wrong way.  It wasn't giving you false information..you just didn't understand what exactly it was telling you.  That doesn't make it wrong or broken.

Part of why that bothered me is I disagree that we need that extra information summarized.  I see that as a step in the wrong direction on the 'ease vs control' scale.  Not a big step, but it's the wrong direction for me.  As someone else mentioned, a more drastic step would be letting us search by potential.  The simpler we make recruiting, the closer this gets to coin-flip dynasty.

It wasn't giving you false information, if you understand that in WIS, 1 remaining season of eligibility could mean 1 season or 2 seasons.  If you are just reading it relative to the English language, it was most definetely giving you false information.  How someone can not see both sides of this is beyond me. 
   If I am a college coach and I ask an assistant how many years of eligibility a player has left (and it could be 1 or 2), the correct answer is not 1, it is "either one or two". 

Posted by killbatman on 6/17/2013 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mrg1037 on 6/17/2013 6:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by killbatman on 6/17/2013 5:58:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being accused of impugning the OP yet again, I would suggest that he might have received fewer negative responses without the indignation over a mistake that he made..though to be fair that sentiment seems to be shared by a lot of posters ITT.

I guess I don't really see the need to encapsulate every possible eligibility scenario into a cheat-sheet for easy reference. 

Indignation? You may be reading a bit too much into this.

And you are knocking down a mighty tall straw man with that last sentence... all I want is a player's information page to not tell me things that are false.

That last part is exactly what rubs me the wrong way.  It wasn't giving you false information..you just didn't understand what exactly it was telling you.  That doesn't make it wrong or broken.

Part of why that bothered me is I disagree that we need that extra information summarized.  I see that as a step in the wrong direction on the 'ease vs control' scale.  Not a big step, but it's the wrong direction for me.  As someone else mentioned, a more drastic step would be letting us search by potential.  The simpler we make recruiting, the closer this gets to coin-flip dynasty.

Totally agree and had the exact same reaction.

I think we'd all be more amenable to change if there would be an acknowledgement that you didn't get screwed somehow.

That player, when recruited, had one more year of guaranteed eligibility. He has to EARN a fifth year of eligibility. It's not a given, just a mere possibility. The game didn't lie to you; you just didn't know what to look for. You thinking that you only had to look at seasons of eligibility remaining and not understanding the interplay with non-qualifiers isn't on the game.

I think once you own that, people will be more receptive. Assuming you care, of course.

Posted by ike1024 on 6/17/2013 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by killbatman on 6/17/2013 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mrg1037 on 6/17/2013 6:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by killbatman on 6/17/2013 5:58:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of being accused of impugning the OP yet again, I would suggest that he might have received fewer negative responses without the indignation over a mistake that he made..though to be fair that sentiment seems to be shared by a lot of posters ITT.

I guess I don't really see the need to encapsulate every possible eligibility scenario into a cheat-sheet for easy reference. 

Indignation? You may be reading a bit too much into this.

And you are knocking down a mighty tall straw man with that last sentence... all I want is a player's information page to not tell me things that are false.

That last part is exactly what rubs me the wrong way.  It wasn't giving you false information..you just didn't understand what exactly it was telling you.  That doesn't make it wrong or broken.

Part of why that bothered me is I disagree that we need that extra information summarized.  I see that as a step in the wrong direction on the 'ease vs control' scale.  Not a big step, but it's the wrong direction for me.  As someone else mentioned, a more drastic step would be letting us search by potential.  The simpler we make recruiting, the closer this gets to coin-flip dynasty.

Totally agree and had the exact same reaction.

I think we'd all be more amenable to change if there would be an acknowledgement that you didn't get screwed somehow.

That player, when recruited, had one more year of guaranteed eligibility. He has to EARN a fifth year of eligibility. It's not a given, just a mere possibility. The game didn't lie to you; you just didn't know what to look for. You thinking that you only had to look at seasons of eligibility remaining and not understanding the interplay with non-qualifiers isn't on the game.

I think once you own that, people will be more receptive. Assuming you care, of course.

Why would my opinion about whether I got screwed or not affect you being amenable to a tweak of how eligible years are displayed? This situation will never affect me again regardless of whether any change happens. At this point I'm just trying to prevent it happening to someone else.

As far as my opinion on what happened, "screwed" is a bit harsh and I am pretty sure I never used that word (feel free to quote me if I'm remembering wrong). I think the way eligible years is displayed is a game flaw, but I certainly admit that additional knowledge on my part could have made that irrelevant. I don't think that knowledge falls within the category of stuff D3 coaches should be expected to know. You do. That's cool, we are both entitled to our opinion. If you or someone else thinks me wanting a display change from 1 to 1* means I "want every possible scenario encapsulated into a cheat sheet"... that's also up to you, even though it's a purposely inflammatory statement that's pretty obviously untrue. Hopefully you can understand why that (and other inflammatory statements like "sometimes you have to use your brain") would rub me the wrong way.

Edited to add, I'm well aware that in the grand scheme of HD this is small potatoes. I'm not claiming this is some grave injustice, just think it could/should be handled differently.

I understand your position and certainly don't think it's absurd. Not that my opinion matters, but I think your argument has some merit.

As for why your opinion as to fault matters, it probably shouldn't. But it's our society's nature, in my experience, to want to help in situations in which people take responsibility. Almost ironically, the "poor me" crowd rarely gets much sympathy. Whether that's fair is an entirely different issue. 

Posted by tbird9423 on 6/17/2013 5:29:00 PM (view original):
Sounds like we all agree that the issue is relatively minor but confusing and could be completely remedied by putting an asterisk next to those players whose eligibility is in questions, depending on division and other unknown factors?  Only a baby boomer would suggest something is broken and not address fixing it, instead blaming the problem on someone who didn't know how to work around the broken system. 
   I too learned this the hard way but had nicer people to describe what happened.  If we could ban 3-4 people completely from the boards (and their multiple id's), we could go a long way in making this a more positive place. 

Might start by banning this one. 

Seems that just about every post you make has some reference to "baby boomers" or is tilted towards some political stance.  How about leaving all that nonsense out and just worry about HD?  The "baby boomers" comment had no reason to be made in this thread.  None.  Yet here you are, crying once again, about how the "baby boomers" have ruined everything.