What’s your source? Prove it! Topic

Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 12/29/2009I agree that it goes both ways. But when the same questions are answered, every week for 2-3 years, a vet will get shorter and shorter with their responses and tolerances. I do believe that has played a role in many vets leaving the forums for different periods of times
I agree with you there mlat, I have taken a few vacations myself in the past. I find it amazing how many things are brought up on a weekly basis when a simple search would find them (granted WIS forum search is very well hidden), that said I do want the new coaches to come to the forums to get help and/or advice and will do better to not worry about repeating. Maybe I can set up a few auto responses like CS? My biggest beef is when someone comes in and asks questions only to argue because they don't like what answer they are getting and I agree with Weena to the effect of the proof is our years of experiance not in the form of six pages I can copy/paste.
12/29/2009 3:42 PM
I believe that I'm over 5,000 games played between this account and my old dynasty account. Needless to say, if I post that I've 'seen' something happen, just assume that I've seen it and I'm not going to go try to dig it up. I don't have anything to gain by making up some BS story. I understand that some coaches will do anything to win, but most of us aren't of that pathetic make up.
12/29/2009 3:45 PM
Yeah, my initial reaction wasn't based on anything to do with the colonels saga, because that thing is out of hand. I agree, if someone says they have seen something, then not only will I listen, but I don't even think a lot of that stuff is provable.

My problem was that weena's original post didn't really have any context and seemed like a general rant about being questioned.
12/29/2009 3:52 PM
I'm sure you guys are sick of hearing from me today, but my response would be... why mess with them? It doesn't take long to figure out who appreciates your response and who doesn't. Just ignore them and move on. What is gained by debating someone 50+ pages? I really appreciate the insight that you guys provide, but don't feel like you have to be the CS of the forums to every person.

12/29/2009 3:53 PM
Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 12/29/2009Yeah, my initial reaction wasn't based on anything to do with the colonels saga, because that thing is out of hand.  I agree, if someone says they have seen something, then not only will I listen, but I don't even think a lot of that stuff is provable.My problem was that weena's original post didn't really have any context and seemed like a general rant about being questioned. 

As he stated in the original post, it was a result of another thread.
12/29/2009 3:55 PM
Quote: Originally posted by johnfoppe on 12/29/2009I'm sure you guys are sick of hearing from me today, but my response would be...  why mess with them?  It doesn't take long to figure out who appreciates your response and who doesn't.  Just ignore them and move on.  What is gained by debating someone 50+ pages?  I really appreciate the insight that you guys provide, but don't feel like you have to be the CS of the forums to every person. 

The veteran coaches are what makes this game. And the reason being, is because we WANT the game to succeed. It's the passion for helping new coaches develop that drives them to continue to respond. But admittedly, lines can get crossed when you want something to succeed so bad, but don't realize when the conversation gets out of control.
12/29/2009 3:56 PM
isack, you are way off here. honestly, you are doing exactly what you are complaining about. you are the only one ive heard say anything black and white on the subject. you claim zhawks' experience was proven wrong when CS came to answer. you say he has no idea what he is talking about. those are a lot more black and white than his very appropriate answer, "its not very significant". he didn't say it was a fact. stick around a while, and see how fun it is to quantify every post with "just to be clear, this is my opinion, not a fact". it would be ridiculous, it is to be assumed, unless otherwise stated.

simply put, CS's response was very vague. zhawks made an approximation - "not very significant" or whatever. how you can take the two and say one is right and one is wrong is beyond me. you know less about the subject than any party involved, yet you are fit to proclaim who is right and who is wrong? sadly, it just doesn't work that way.

it is easiest to understand if you think about it like this. the low level CS employee gets paid ****, is not very bright, and does not know this game well. you suggest it is arrogant for zhawks to think he knows more than these low level cs reps... quite literally, it is insane to think otherwise. its not even close.

its been a common theme since i started this game... people taking things from CS the wrong way. you have to recognize the audience, and the intent of the message. CS is not here to give vets the secrets to the game. they want to help people who understand the game *considerably less than they do* figure some things out. so, someone who doesn't fully understand the ramifications of what they are saying, is trying to give general advice to new players. i don't think they make it a high priority not to mislead us, either. but, its not all their fault. the community of coaches is plenty to blame. there are many examples of 1-2 liners from CS turning into a thread with several pages of theories and implications off those couple lines, often relying on as slight a detail as the choice of a single word. sweeping generalizations have been made that are fairly baffling when you go back and read the 2 liner that started it all.

the way i look at it is, the old fooled me once saying. CS gives poor, misleading information at times. it is what it is, given the state of business today, i don't think it is all that appalling. at this point, the responsibility falls on us, to protect ourselves with a wary eye. and, its so easy for a new (or old) coach to misplace their faith in low level CS responses, and take them too far - it is intuitive to expect them to know best, but often, it just isn't true. and I am totally serious when I say everybody who is telling you, that you are totally misjudging their response, is doing it for your own benefit.
12/29/2009 4:03 PM
isack just read the link I posted to my thread about double teaming with a press. It shows a lot.
12/29/2009 4:05 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 12/29/2009
Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 12/29/2009
Yeah, my initial reaction wasn't based on anything to do with the colonels saga, because that thing is out of hand. I agree, if someone says they have seen something, then not only will I listen, but I don't even think a lot of that stuff is provable.

My problem was that weena's original post didn't really have any context and seemed like a general rant about being questioned.

As he stated in the original post, it was a result of another thread
I really don't want to get back into this, but he said it was the result of a lot of threads. That's why I didn't think it was just the colonels thing.
12/29/2009 4:23 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 12/29/2009"just to be clear, this is my opinion, not a fact". it would be ridiculous, it is to be assumed, unless otherwise stated.

simply put, CS's response was very vague. zhawks made an approximation - "not very significant" or whatever. how you can take the two and say one is right and one is wrong is beyond me. you know less about the subject than any party involved, yet you are fit to proclaim who is right and who is wrong? sadly, it just doesn't work that way.

The whole start of your post is so off base that I'll just respond to these two statements.

Yes, when someone is asking of a factual response, someone should quantify an opinion with a statement noting the response as such. Not everything is an opinion. Not even close. Even if it's simply based on zhawks' experience, he should say that, so long as he doesn't know. In fact, I think he did do that later, but not originally, which is what set off the OP.

The second statement is just crap. My contention from the beginning has simply been that zhawks didn't know the answer but at least implied he did. I never said I knew the answer.

And as I've already conceded (it would help if you actually read through the thread before freaking out), zhawks has as much knowledge as CS. I understand that they are, at best, "off" on some topics. But again, that doesn't mean that anyone knewanswer.
12/29/2009 4:29 PM
Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 12/29/2009It's going on right now in the JUCO thread.It's great that vets want to respond to questions based on their experience.  That's awesome and helpful, but it turns out zhawks' experience-based opinion was wrong.  Someone provided a response from CS.Here's what I've been seeing lately: vets are annoyed and, consequently condescending, because they are being questioned, even when they have a right to be questioned.  New coaches aren't being as gracious that vets are taking the time to answer their questions.  It's going both ways.

this is what i was responding to. it turns out zhawks' experience based opinion was wrong... i think that is more than a bit of a stretch.

the original post of the thread you are referring to as factual, begins "... but i thought i would ask as to what people feel...". that sounds pretty open to opinions to me. i surely wouldn't have qualified my answer with a disclaimer that it was just my opinion. i can't see how that wouldn't be obvious.

anyway, i don't mean to argue with you so much, i agree with at least half of what you've said.
12/29/2009 4:46 PM
to many duchebags in HD now a days. good stuff weena I agree.
12/29/2009 5:18 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 12/29/2009

At the end of a season, when you look back, do you remember the champion or the most talented squad? The best team wins the title. When have you ever heard Villanova called the best team of 1985? When have you ever heard 1982 Chaminade was better than 1982 Virginia? When have you ever heard 1998 Temple called better than 1982 Virginia Tech? You can't honestly think the 2007 NY Giants were better than the 2007 Patriots either, or can you? It's really not that hard to understand. Unless you're a Cowboys fan. I really think you're in the minority in this argument...winning a championship means you're a champion, not necessarily the best team in the league. The best teams don't always win...what about the 2001 Mariners?
12/29/2009 6:31 PM
Quote: Originally posted by breum on 12/29/2009Colonels, IBob had 12 SF's on his DI team.  Another guy, who I don't recall, had 12 PF's on a DIII team that at least made the final four, if they didn't win the title. Its been done many times.

joeskg tried the same thing at San Francisco - Smith (I was coaching Santa Clara at the time) with pretty good results:

23 joesgk 27-3 10-1 15-0 2-2 16-0 4 4 C Conf Champion
NT At-large Bid
NT (Sweet 16)
22 joesgk 23-7 12-2 8-4 3-1 15-1 11 - Conf Champion
CT Champion
NT (1st Round)
21 joesgk 9-18 6-11 3-6 0-1 4-12 266 -
20 joesgk 2-25 1-13 1-11 0-1 2-14 323 -



The San Fran records page is still littered with his SFs... the only category that doesn't feature one of his guys in the top 15 is blocks.
12/29/2009 7:24 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 12/29/2009
Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 12/29/2009
It's going on right now in the JUCO thread.

It's great that vets want to respond to questions based on their experience. That's awesome and helpful, but it turns out zhawks' experience-based opinion was wrong. Someone provided a response from CS.

Here's what I've been seeing lately: vets are annoyed and, consequently condescending, because they are being questioned, even when they have a right to be questioned. New coaches aren't being as gracious that vets are taking the time to answer their questions. It's going both ways.

this is what i was responding to. it turns out zhawks' experience based opinion was wrong... i think that is more than a bit of a stretch.

the original post of the thread you are referring to as factual, begins "... but i thought i would ask as to what people feel...". that sounds pretty open to opinions to me. i surely wouldn't have qualified my answer with a disclaimer that it was just my opinion. i can't see how that wouldn't be obvious.

anyway, i don't mean to argue with you so much, i agree with at least half of what you've said
Same. I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying and I can say that I've never really questioned any of the vets. I just don't think it's such a mistake to ask for proof on some things.
12/29/2009 8:25 PM
◂ Prev 1...5|6|7|8 Next ▸
What’s your source? Prove it! Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.