Posted by poncho0091 on 12/20/2016 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/20/2016 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Couldn't this just lead to "all in" losses? Duke and Elon are chasing the same recruit with the same resources. Duke was a F4 team, Elon was 302. Both go all in but, due to prestige/preferences/etc, Duke has a slight edge. Elon loses and everyone says "Elon should have lost" and nothing is mentioned again. Duke loses, user's head explodes and everyone is all "Total Bullshit. Duke promising starts and minutes should ALWAYS best Elon!!!!" with the obligatory "This game sucks. I quit."

Is this somehow better than what we have?

You and spud have been telling people learn to budget when they have complaints about the current scouting system, but now you want hand holding for the recruiting budget?

The only thing I've been telling people was to stop ******* whining non-stop. Other than that, I haven't told anyone a thing about how to play the game(Well, I did answer a couple simple questions).

Now, if you want to argue with me, I'll certainly comply. But, if you would, start the argument properly. IOW, know what the hell you starting with. Thanks in advance.

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 1:46:00 PM (view original):
Here's the issue, to me, I see with your argument PK/Shoe. You're in the old 2.0 mindset where 6 openings creates such a huge advantage. It's been mitigated a lot.

No more rollover.
No more postseason bonus cash.
No more rolling over of postseason bonus cash.
Preferences were implemented
Recruiting caps were eliminated so now a D- prestige can actually send effort to a 5 star.
The allocation of recruiting cash was changed and now you get some baseline.
Variable/probalistic signing (RNG)
They say prestige impact hasn't changed but maybe this up for debate

If I have 3 openings, I get $14 grand. Whether I'm at Duke or Elon. If I have 6 openings I have $23 grand. This is not double.

I think it could INCREASE battling and actually make it harder for A+ teams. If I'm at New Mexico State, I take my 6 openings and go big on a couple 5 star guys against Duke, whether he has 6 openings or 2. Because I know he has much more to risk if he loses. Can he go 50 HVs too? Sure. But then how will he beat other teams? That's quite a big risk for him to take if he wants to compete in the ACC. I'm in the Big South, I can handle losing that battle and taking an average player as a backup.

I feel like a few people are terrified of A+ prestige schools taking over and I don't see it. They're going to have so many more schools to compete against based upon all the changes I listed above. 6 openings or not, I'm coming for them, even with my D prestige.

Edit- In fact I'm MORE likely to come at them if I think I could outspend them. If I know we both max out, I will likely lose due to prestige.

I know you're going to think this is nit-picking, but it is double the scholarship resources. The 5k base is something everyone gets. Those aren't scholarship resources. The scholarship resource difference between 3 and 6 opening teams is 9k to 18k. That difference is 30+ HVs for a local kid. It isn't insignificant, and it *absolutely will* blow you out of the water, if other factors are comparable.

This isn't primarily about D schools competing with A schools. As I recall, weren't you concerned that you were able to get too good recruits at NMSU? I don't think it's in the interest of the game to increase NMSU's chances of landing a recruit that Duke wants, and I doubt many people actually do. More important is how this proposed change affects recruiting between two comparable teams. And it *undoubtedly* swings it far into the "scholarships are king again" camp.

did you read anything he said, or are you just disagreeing because your tiff over the multiple votes? and what the hell does your semantic pick about the definition of "scholarship resources" have to do with anything? bottom line - the amount of money you have available per scholarship is less the more scholarships you have open. with money per scholarship diminishing, and without BCS money and rollover, no way you can say undoubtedly taking the cap off favors the scholarships are king system. which, by the way, was overstated in the first place - i would happily battle a BCS school (as BCS myself) with 5 openings when i had 3, because they had a big class to sign, and i didn't - i had WAY more money to spend per player than them. everyone just ******* and assumed they'll lose, and by thinking so, they make it a reality - but scholarships were never really king, among those who knew what they were doing. with all the changes, you very much have less money per player, the more openings you get. the only thing undoubted about it is that you undoubtedly have no idea how to recruit in d1. sorry man, you need to open that mind a bit.

The one issue I would have removing the caps would be it would be next to impossible to recruit anything with a single opening (and worse until they fix the EE issue, trying to plan for backups with just that single opening).

One opening and its back to poaching near signing again as there is no way to make someone think twice about battling you if there is no way for you to stop them from pushing you down to moderate.

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Come on, benis. Do you really think the cap was instituted because of one example? It was happening. I can only recount my own experience as an anecdote, I don't have access to other people's examples or memories. I wasn't the only one who noticed the problem, and my problem with it was not the sole basis for the cap.

All I'm saying is - I don't remember hearing much in beta about capping the HVs as a good idea because of situations like yours. I remember when Seble announced the change he mentioned that he did it because "it wasn't realistic" to have 80 Home Visits. I also remember that were more people disliking the cap at the time. I was actually indifferent to it at the time so I didn't really have an opinion either way.

correct. HV cap was added primarily because seble was too lazy to fix the sniping issue properly, the HV cap was his attempt at getting around that problem.

fyi shoe, i'm only being hard on you because the "my son probably agrees" is the lamest response i've heard to anything in a long time :) i smiled when benis called you out for voting twice, its both funny and ridiculous. all you had to do was ignore him or tell him to F himself. that said, that doesn't change anything i said, i stand by it 100% and what you said that i pushed back on is still roughly 100% wrong.

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/20/2016 8:04:00 PM (view original):
fyi shoe, i'm only being hard on you because the "my son probably agrees" is the lamest response i've heard to anything in a long time :) i smiled when benis called you out for voting twice, its both funny and ridiculous. all you had to do was ignore him or tell him to F himself. that said, that doesn't change anything i said, i stand by it 100% and what you said that i pushed back on is still roughly 100% wrong.

You are delusional if you think that 10 extra HVs doesn't make a difference in this system, and that people will continue to battle teams with more scholarships with that kind of difference. With as risk averse as people were in the previous version, you should know that's true. I have to admit, I don't even know what you "pushed back on" precisely, because your rant was less intelligible than normal for you (too much eggnog?) but I pretty clearly made this point at the bottom of the last page.

Im not one to ignore ridiculousness on forums. It's a well documented fault of mine. I know we haven't had much interaction here, but I assure you, responding to ridiculousness is just me being me. Benis's wadded up panties over the integrity of the forum poll he thought was silly and meaningless was ridiculous, and I did take the bait.

My panties are super wadded up. But I kind of like them that way.. is that weird?

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 9:02:00 PM (view original):
My panties are super wadded up. But I kind of like them that way.. is that weird?

When your name rhymes with cleanest and meanest, maybe a little.

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/20/2016 8:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Come on, benis. Do you really think the cap was instituted because of one example? It was happening. I can only recount my own experience as an anecdote, I don't have access to other people's examples or memories. I wasn't the only one who noticed the problem, and my problem with it was not the sole basis for the cap.

All I'm saying is - I don't remember hearing much in beta about capping the HVs as a good idea because of situations like yours. I remember when Seble announced the change he mentioned that he did it because "it wasn't realistic" to have 80 Home Visits. I also remember that were more people disliking the cap at the time. I was actually indifferent to it at the time so I didn't really have an opinion either way.

correct. HV cap was added primarily because seble was too lazy to fix the sniping issue properly, the HV cap was his attempt at getting around that problem.

Ah yes that was it. Thanks for confirming Gil. I remember you and a few others wanted to make sure 3.0 fixed the poaching/signing issue. The first season of Beta made this sniping issue 100x worse because it initially processed HVs and updated interest level instantaneously so you could just send HVs one at a time until you were ahead. Thank god that was changed btw.

But yeah, never had to do with teams afraid to battle because other teams had more openings.

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 9:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/20/2016 8:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 12/20/2016 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 12/20/2016 5:12:00 PM (view original):
Come on, benis. Do you really think the cap was instituted because of one example? It was happening. I can only recount my own experience as an anecdote, I don't have access to other people's examples or memories. I wasn't the only one who noticed the problem, and my problem with it was not the sole basis for the cap.

All I'm saying is - I don't remember hearing much in beta about capping the HVs as a good idea because of situations like yours. I remember when Seble announced the change he mentioned that he did it because "it wasn't realistic" to have 80 Home Visits. I also remember that were more people disliking the cap at the time. I was actually indifferent to it at the time so I didn't really have an opinion either way.

correct. HV cap was added primarily because seble was too lazy to fix the sniping issue properly, the HV cap was his attempt at getting around that problem.

Ah yes that was it. Thanks for confirming Gil. I remember you and a few others wanted to make sure 3.0 fixed the poaching/signing issue. The first season of Beta made this sniping issue 100x worse because it initially processed HVs and updated interest level instantaneously so you could just send HVs one at a time until you were ahead. Thank god that was changed btw.

But yeah, never had to do with teams afraid to battle because other teams had more openings.

His fix for sniping was making the actions wait for cycles, and making signing tendencies scoutable. The 20 cap doesn't make sense as a "fix" for sniping. It makes a lot of sense as a way to make sure number of scholarships aren't a primary factor for a single recruiting battle. There were a lot of post-first-season adjustments that were implemented at once, and a lot of them worked in tandem. And whether Gil was in on those discussions or not, people were talking about it. Tarvolon and I were prominent, but we weren't the only ones.

"You and spud have been telling people ..."

poncho, it is obvious you have no earthly idea what I've been telling people. And since MikeT pointed out you were wrong about him, too, you are oh-for-two and would have been better off if you didn't take your hands out of your pockets.