just to be clear, shoe - all the things you say matter, on the other side of it - the value of recruits in all the other situations you talk about - i totally agree all of those things have value. it just has to be balanced against the value of walkons.

Posted by Benis on 7/9/2019 10:52:00 PM (view original):
"sign a guy who hurts you by eating a spot (and the 3k+20ap that comes with it"

It's not only recruiting money but scouting money. Top hinted at it, but the scouting budgets at D3 are VERY small. Having 3 openings instead of 1 makes it MUCH easier to scout effectively at D3.

oh that's interesting. i haven't played d2/d3 in 3.0, but i can imagine that is a big help.

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/9/2019 7:36:00 PM (view original):
i have to say it - walkons add value. a lot of it. they give an extra scholarship worth of resources over a mediocre player, or any other player for that matter.

couple things to add - topdogg walking back the poorly worded recommendation to go 'all-in on one player and be fine taking 3 walkons if you miss' is a good thing. you shouldn't be THAT extreme in your approach - especially new to d1 with c+ prestige. its a fine move for an experienced coach, but like shoe said, even then you won't be all in on that 1 player 95% of the time. for a new-to-d1 coach its generally a good recipe for two things - taking 3 walkons and getting frustrated. its OK to try it, but i would recommend a new coach with zone to shoot for at least 10 players, so they have some room to miss.'

topdogg being unwilling to stand up for his idea and assert directly that walk ons have value - not so good :) 3k + 20ap for potentially 4 seasons, that is a lot of value. the overall concept is right; walkons are worth a lot and zone teams can afford to carry multiple of them. there is a lot of nuance in how many walkons one should take; most have too many or too few, few hit the nail right on the head. its also very circumstance-dependent.

that said, the concept is simple. the last player you sign, your 12 man, has to bring substantial value to your team - more than a walkon is worth - to be worth signing. signing a guy to be career backup or a 'good reserve', as i've heard people call them, is generally a pretty bad idea. your player doesn't have to do a damn thing right away, but if hes not a highly valuable starter (or perhaps a very high scoring bench player) by the end of his career - a walkon is worth more.

its the exact same concept for your 11th man or your 10th man, but its just a lot less likely you'll fill your 10th spot with a guy who brings little value than your 12th man spot. still, it happens, i see people do it all the time - sign a guy just to fill a spot, when they really don't need to fill said spot. the key to remember, its far better to have a 'useless' walkon for 1 season, than to sign a guy who hurts you by eating a spot (and the 3k+20ap that comes with it) for 4 years. even if its like, your 8th man in zone you are trying to fill, or 9th with an un-even rotation - sure, that empty spot will hurt you a bit this season, but far less than having dead weight for 4 seasons will.

i do think shoe is right people tend to under-sell the value of projects in the zone. you only need 8 'real' players, so that not only gives you room for walkons, but projects, ineligibles, etc - just like he said. but again, the most common mistake i see people make running zone is settling for mediocre players in that 11th and 12th man spot, which is really awful if you are running zone. take the walkons. its OK in press, but a disaster in zone.

First, the "walking back on poorly blah blah".... as we've discussed before, I'm not as politically correct as some of you. Me saying to put all your resources into 1 player, is saying go catch a big fish! "Literally" speaking as the rest of you push for here, that's actually impossible 9.9 times out of 10. If you have $3k to spend and visits cost $296, there's gonna be SOME money left over. 10 visits would be $2960 so there would be $40 left. Some of you guys make me feel like we're sitting at a prestigious event having tea and crumpets with royalty, while having discussions. We're not, we're just a bunch of men arguing with people on the internet. Yes it's important to be clear, because new people don't grasp the all the dynamics of this game. By me saying to put all your resources into one big recruit doesn't mean to close your eyes and avoid every other player around you. It just means go focus on one damn good player! A player that some may consider a reach slightly above the norm.

The "walk ons do/don't add value" part. The walk on himself doesn't add value. As in he doesn't play in the game and score points and win you a title. Extra resources are a byproduct of having a walk on. And that's the whole point I'm arguing FOR.

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/10/2019 1:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2019 10:25:00 PM (view original):
Walkons don’t add value. Unless you have an A+ prestige team and have a shot at landing actually usable walkons on occasion, it’s a wash against an ANQ or redshirted player for the first year, and significantly less valuable than an active player you intend to give minutes to.

Walkons do give you extra buying power *for one season*. That buying power is *potential value*, but it has to be realized in terms of a player who adds value to your team. And to what extent another open scholarship helps you do that is tough to quantify. In 2.0, that buying power was worth considerably more than it is now. Folks don’t have to be scared off by a team with more open scholarships. So quantifying how much better shot you’ll have with a single recruit, or how much higher you can successfully reach because of the extra open scholarship in a given year is kind of a fool’s errand. A+ teams go all the way in and still lose guys.

Zone is a different kind of beast for a lot of reasons, and it’s absolutely true that flexibility, which includes the flexibility to take walkons when desired, is an advantage. But the open scholarship is not adding value in itself. You still have to turn it into a player at some point. There are lots of instances where projects, ANQs, and jucos are going to be quantifiably valuable to your team; a bird in the hand vs two in the bush, and all that. Advising folks against recruiting those types of players - because zone - is not helpful, especially for C+ level mid-majors who should be playing in the possible early entry candidate pool for their top targets. Having those “useful bench players” is sometimes the only thing keeping a team above water through the bad luck streaks we all know can happen.

you are directly quibbling between 'value' and 'potential value' here. you admit there is potential value, but deny this translates to real value. the event where you get to convert that potential value into value is all that must be examined to determine if you are drawing a difference with distinction or not.

in this case, as long as you are coaching next season and have less than 6 openings from non-walkons, you are guaranteed to experience an event (recruiting) with the potential to convert that potential value to value. over a series of such events, it is unquestionable that having one or more scholarships of money, lets say 2 = 40AP + 6k, is going to significantly improve one's ability to recruit quality talent. it may not work out every season, but all those extra resources will pay significant dividends on average, unless you are totally incompetent.

so, it is clear here that the expected outcome is that the 'potential value' of a walkon will get converted into 'real value' of considerable significance. your argument therefore holds no water.

Calling it a “distinction without a difference” is incorrect. There’s a big difference. A walkon doesn’t help you win any games, ever. Even a mediocre player helps a team, if he is better than the walkon, and gets game time. Of course, I’m not advocating filling a roster just to fill it. That’s dumb. The player should project to better than replacement level.

The resources for an open scholarship are enough to get you in on about 1/2 of an all-in battle. Two open scholarships gets you another all-in battle. You can’t choose who will challenge you, of course, so it could be all in on a battle that never materializes, it could be all-in against multiple other teams, where even if you’re “in the lead”, you could be less than 50%. It could also get you to a point where you can lock in a guy that you would have had to battle for, without the extra scholarship. That’s ideal. But ideal doesn’t materialize nearly as often as you seem to think (“all those extra resources will pay significant dividends on average”).

I don’t disagree that walkons can be useful. I do take them sometimes. There is definitely a distinction between useful and valuable, though. If it seems like splitting hairs to you, I emphasize this distinction here because the bad advice initially given - throw all your resources on one guy, plan to always have 2 walkons - is exactly the kind of advice that gets people really frustrated with this game. Commodities go for a very wide range of prices, and bring a pretty wide range of value, and there is no linear correlation.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/10/2019 9:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/10/2019 1:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2019 10:25:00 PM (view original):
Walkons don’t add value. Unless you have an A+ prestige team and have a shot at landing actually usable walkons on occasion, it’s a wash against an ANQ or redshirted player for the first year, and significantly less valuable than an active player you intend to give minutes to.

Walkons do give you extra buying power *for one season*. That buying power is *potential value*, but it has to be realized in terms of a player who adds value to your team. And to what extent another open scholarship helps you do that is tough to quantify. In 2.0, that buying power was worth considerably more than it is now. Folks don’t have to be scared off by a team with more open scholarships. So quantifying how much better shot you’ll have with a single recruit, or how much higher you can successfully reach because of the extra open scholarship in a given year is kind of a fool’s errand. A+ teams go all the way in and still lose guys.

Zone is a different kind of beast for a lot of reasons, and it’s absolutely true that flexibility, which includes the flexibility to take walkons when desired, is an advantage. But the open scholarship is not adding value in itself. You still have to turn it into a player at some point. There are lots of instances where projects, ANQs, and jucos are going to be quantifiably valuable to your team; a bird in the hand vs two in the bush, and all that. Advising folks against recruiting those types of players - because zone - is not helpful, especially for C+ level mid-majors who should be playing in the possible early entry candidate pool for their top targets. Having those “useful bench players” is sometimes the only thing keeping a team above water through the bad luck streaks we all know can happen.

you are directly quibbling between 'value' and 'potential value' here. you admit there is potential value, but deny this translates to real value. the event where you get to convert that potential value into value is all that must be examined to determine if you are drawing a difference with distinction or not.

in this case, as long as you are coaching next season and have less than 6 openings from non-walkons, you are guaranteed to experience an event (recruiting) with the potential to convert that potential value to value. over a series of such events, it is unquestionable that having one or more scholarships of money, lets say 2 = 40AP + 6k, is going to significantly improve one's ability to recruit quality talent. it may not work out every season, but all those extra resources will pay significant dividends on average, unless you are totally incompetent.

so, it is clear here that the expected outcome is that the 'potential value' of a walkon will get converted into 'real value' of considerable significance. your argument therefore holds no water.

Calling it a “distinction without a difference” is incorrect. There’s a big difference. A walkon doesn’t help you win any games, ever. Even a mediocre player helps a team, if he is better than the walkon, and gets game time. Of course, I’m not advocating filling a roster just to fill it. That’s dumb. The player should project to better than replacement level.

The resources for an open scholarship are enough to get you in on about 1/2 of an all-in battle. Two open scholarships gets you another all-in battle. You can’t choose who will challenge you, of course, so it could be all in on a battle that never materializes, it could be all-in against multiple other teams, where even if you’re “in the lead”, you could be less than 50%. It could also get you to a point where you can lock in a guy that you would have had to battle for, without the extra scholarship. That’s ideal. But ideal doesn’t materialize nearly as often as you seem to think (“all those extra resources will pay significant dividends on average”).

I don’t disagree that walkons can be useful. I do take them sometimes. There is definitely a distinction between useful and valuable, though. If it seems like splitting hairs to you, I emphasize this distinction here because the bad advice initially given - throw all your resources on one guy, plan to always have 2 walkons - is exactly the kind of advice that gets people really frustrated with this game. Commodities go for a very wide range of prices, and bring a pretty wide range of value, and there is no linear correlation.

absolutely nothing you said here addresses the point of whether recruits have value or not, other than your unsupported and contradicted claim that they do not. the goodness or badness of the original advice has nothing to do with whether recruits have value. the unexplained distinction between useful and valuable has nothing to do with whether recruits have value or not.

the main thing you should realize is this. you spent half your talking talking about how, in a single example, having extra walkon money *might* not help you. you close with '<it doesn't work out well> as often as you seem to think'. you are conceding it does happen sometimes. all im saying is, the value of walkons is clearly not 0. they clearly help you win games and titles by giving you extra resources to fill your team with good players with. you are claiming it is 0, while acknowledging sometimes the walkons have value. it makes no sense. whether they have a little value or a lot is debatable; whether they have some or none, is not.

it is, to be frank, ridiculous that your counter to recruits having value through raising talent level is 'well 1 season the extra money might not buy you anything'. logic simply does not work that way. what happens in 1 contrived example does not dictate what happens over the long run. what determines if walkons have value or not, is whether in the long run, on average, they lead to better results in recruiting. of course there is fluctuation, we all know that - but we also know, literally every single coach, that having 6k and 40AP extra every season would ultimately lead to having better talent on the team in the long run, unless you are completely and totally incompetent. better talent leads to better results. it's really no more complicated than that.

Posted by topdogggbm on 7/10/2019 4:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/9/2019 7:36:00 PM (view original):
i have to say it - walkons add value. a lot of it. they give an extra scholarship worth of resources over a mediocre player, or any other player for that matter.

couple things to add - topdogg walking back the poorly worded recommendation to go 'all-in on one player and be fine taking 3 walkons if you miss' is a good thing. you shouldn't be THAT extreme in your approach - especially new to d1 with c+ prestige. its a fine move for an experienced coach, but like shoe said, even then you won't be all in on that 1 player 95% of the time. for a new-to-d1 coach its generally a good recipe for two things - taking 3 walkons and getting frustrated. its OK to try it, but i would recommend a new coach with zone to shoot for at least 10 players, so they have some room to miss.'

topdogg being unwilling to stand up for his idea and assert directly that walk ons have value - not so good :) 3k + 20ap for potentially 4 seasons, that is a lot of value. the overall concept is right; walkons are worth a lot and zone teams can afford to carry multiple of them. there is a lot of nuance in how many walkons one should take; most have too many or too few, few hit the nail right on the head. its also very circumstance-dependent.

that said, the concept is simple. the last player you sign, your 12 man, has to bring substantial value to your team - more than a walkon is worth - to be worth signing. signing a guy to be career backup or a 'good reserve', as i've heard people call them, is generally a pretty bad idea. your player doesn't have to do a damn thing right away, but if hes not a highly valuable starter (or perhaps a very high scoring bench player) by the end of his career - a walkon is worth more.

its the exact same concept for your 11th man or your 10th man, but its just a lot less likely you'll fill your 10th spot with a guy who brings little value than your 12th man spot. still, it happens, i see people do it all the time - sign a guy just to fill a spot, when they really don't need to fill said spot. the key to remember, its far better to have a 'useless' walkon for 1 season, than to sign a guy who hurts you by eating a spot (and the 3k+20ap that comes with it) for 4 years. even if its like, your 8th man in zone you are trying to fill, or 9th with an un-even rotation - sure, that empty spot will hurt you a bit this season, but far less than having dead weight for 4 seasons will.

i do think shoe is right people tend to under-sell the value of projects in the zone. you only need 8 'real' players, so that not only gives you room for walkons, but projects, ineligibles, etc - just like he said. but again, the most common mistake i see people make running zone is settling for mediocre players in that 11th and 12th man spot, which is really awful if you are running zone. take the walkons. its OK in press, but a disaster in zone.

First, the "walking back on poorly blah blah".... as we've discussed before, I'm not as politically correct as some of you. Me saying to put all your resources into 1 player, is saying go catch a big fish! "Literally" speaking as the rest of you push for here, that's actually impossible 9.9 times out of 10. If you have $3k to spend and visits cost $296, there's gonna be SOME money left over. 10 visits would be $2960 so there would be $40 left. Some of you guys make me feel like we're sitting at a prestigious event having tea and crumpets with royalty, while having discussions. We're not, we're just a bunch of men arguing with people on the internet. Yes it's important to be clear, because new people don't grasp the all the dynamics of this game. By me saying to put all your resources into one big recruit doesn't mean to close your eyes and avoid every other player around you. It just means go focus on one damn good player! A player that some may consider a reach slightly above the norm.

The "walk ons do/don't add value" part. The walk on himself doesn't add value. As in he doesn't play in the game and score points and win you a title. Extra resources are a byproduct of having a walk on. And that's the whole point I'm arguing FOR.

like i said, you have the right idea. its probably a bit much to go all in (even with just AP, spending money on others) as a new-to-d1 coach, but i agree with your sentiment for sure.

just to be clear how ridiculous the last part is - you say 'The walk on himself doesn't add value. As in he doesn't play in the game and score points and win you a title.' - when did playing in the game become the measure of value? it is clearly not. practice planning has value, it has no direct impact on games, but good execution of practice planning, just like quality execution of a good walk-on strategy, increases the talent level of the players who DO play in the game. another example - i don't play in the game, but i might double the odds of a team winning the title the minute i take said team over. clearly, i have value - from a results standpoint, which is i think where it is sensible to define value. having good results depends on a lot more than just who happens to be in the game at the time. trying to define value as such trivializes the situation and is pretty blatantly wrong. all the recruiting money we get never plays in a game, does none of the money have any value at all, no impact on results? thats fine, go recruit and scout with 0 dollars per cycle and then explain to me how recruiting and scouting money has no value :)

Gillipsie - I'm fairly confident you and Topdogg are saying the same thing about walkons here. Everything you said about what adds value is what he meant by the comment of 'a byproduct'.

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/10/2019 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/10/2019 9:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/10/2019 1:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2019 10:25:00 PM (view original):
Walkons don’t add value. Unless you have an A+ prestige team and have a shot at landing actually usable walkons on occasion, it’s a wash against an ANQ or redshirted player for the first year, and significantly less valuable than an active player you intend to give minutes to.

Walkons do give you extra buying power *for one season*. That buying power is *potential value*, but it has to be realized in terms of a player who adds value to your team. And to what extent another open scholarship helps you do that is tough to quantify. In 2.0, that buying power was worth considerably more than it is now. Folks don’t have to be scared off by a team with more open scholarships. So quantifying how much better shot you’ll have with a single recruit, or how much higher you can successfully reach because of the extra open scholarship in a given year is kind of a fool’s errand. A+ teams go all the way in and still lose guys.

Zone is a different kind of beast for a lot of reasons, and it’s absolutely true that flexibility, which includes the flexibility to take walkons when desired, is an advantage. But the open scholarship is not adding value in itself. You still have to turn it into a player at some point. There are lots of instances where projects, ANQs, and jucos are going to be quantifiably valuable to your team; a bird in the hand vs two in the bush, and all that. Advising folks against recruiting those types of players - because zone - is not helpful, especially for C+ level mid-majors who should be playing in the possible early entry candidate pool for their top targets. Having those “useful bench players” is sometimes the only thing keeping a team above water through the bad luck streaks we all know can happen.

you are directly quibbling between 'value' and 'potential value' here. you admit there is potential value, but deny this translates to real value. the event where you get to convert that potential value into value is all that must be examined to determine if you are drawing a difference with distinction or not.

in this case, as long as you are coaching next season and have less than 6 openings from non-walkons, you are guaranteed to experience an event (recruiting) with the potential to convert that potential value to value. over a series of such events, it is unquestionable that having one or more scholarships of money, lets say 2 = 40AP + 6k, is going to significantly improve one's ability to recruit quality talent. it may not work out every season, but all those extra resources will pay significant dividends on average, unless you are totally incompetent.

so, it is clear here that the expected outcome is that the 'potential value' of a walkon will get converted into 'real value' of considerable significance. your argument therefore holds no water.

Calling it a “distinction without a difference” is incorrect. There’s a big difference. A walkon doesn’t help you win any games, ever. Even a mediocre player helps a team, if he is better than the walkon, and gets game time. Of course, I’m not advocating filling a roster just to fill it. That’s dumb. The player should project to better than replacement level.

The resources for an open scholarship are enough to get you in on about 1/2 of an all-in battle. Two open scholarships gets you another all-in battle. You can’t choose who will challenge you, of course, so it could be all in on a battle that never materializes, it could be all-in against multiple other teams, where even if you’re “in the lead”, you could be less than 50%. It could also get you to a point where you can lock in a guy that you would have had to battle for, without the extra scholarship. That’s ideal. But ideal doesn’t materialize nearly as often as you seem to think (“all those extra resources will pay significant dividends on average”).

I don’t disagree that walkons can be useful. I do take them sometimes. There is definitely a distinction between useful and valuable, though. If it seems like splitting hairs to you, I emphasize this distinction here because the bad advice initially given - throw all your resources on one guy, plan to always have 2 walkons - is exactly the kind of advice that gets people really frustrated with this game. Commodities go for a very wide range of prices, and bring a pretty wide range of value, and there is no linear correlation.

absolutely nothing you said here addresses the point of whether recruits have value or not, other than your unsupported and contradicted claim that they do not. the goodness or badness of the original advice has nothing to do with whether recruits have value. the unexplained distinction between useful and valuable has nothing to do with whether recruits have value or not.

the main thing you should realize is this. you spent half your talking talking about how, in a single example, having extra walkon money *might* not help you. you close with '<it doesn't work out well> as often as you seem to think'. you are conceding it does happen sometimes. all im saying is, the value of walkons is clearly not 0. they clearly help you win games and titles by giving you extra resources to fill your team with good players with. you are claiming it is 0, while acknowledging sometimes the walkons have value. it makes no sense. whether they have a little value or a lot is debatable; whether they have some or none, is not.

it is, to be frank, ridiculous that your counter to recruits having value through raising talent level is 'well 1 season the extra money might not buy you anything'. logic simply does not work that way. what happens in 1 contrived example does not dictate what happens over the long run. what determines if walkons have value or not, is whether in the long run, on average, they lead to better results in recruiting. of course there is fluctuation, we all know that - but we also know, literally every single coach, that having 6k and 40AP extra every season would ultimately lead to having better talent on the team in the long run, unless you are completely and totally incompetent. better talent leads to better results. it's really no more complicated than that.

It’s hard to tell here if you’re intentionally obfuscating the point, or if you’re just as particular about language as I am. I’ll presume the latter, and try to crystallize some of the points so far, as I see them, so we’re not accidentally talking past each other.

We both seem to mostly agree that a benefit of zone is the flexibility to do lots of things with the roster, because you don’t *need* contribution from the last 2-4 spots in a given season. That includes - but is certainly not limited to - taking walkons, and using their resources to try to get better recruits next season. It also includes the ability to take projects, ANQs, and transfer/jucos (for those not aware, you can sit a senior, redshirt him at the end of the year, and get to use all of the resources as if he was graduating, even after you stick the redshirt on him prior to RS2).

A walkon not on the depth chart does not add value to the team. They’re not even giving your starters a breather, so they play more minutes at fresh. It’s exactly the same as a redshirted player or an ANQ in their first season. The difference is that you know you will get value from the redshirt and ANQ down the road. The walkon not on the depth chart never adds value, ie he never contributes to winning a game. The open scholarship is *useful*, but although usefulness and value are synonyms sometimes, they don’t mean the same thing. Money is useful. But its “value” is all perceived. Value is added benefit, in and of itself. Money is useful, but the bread, shelter, and entertainment it can be used to purchase is what has value. In life, in a stable economy, the correlation between price and value is relatively linear. Not so in 3.0.

A player above replacement level on the depth chart has *value*. As you say, the level of value is debateable, but if he’s on the depth chart and better than replacement level, he is adding something tangible to the team’s effort. That’s not to say this player is always worth a scholarship, as has been said, to fill a roster for the sake of having a full roster. Ultimately, the calculus comes down to whether you would rather have the bird in your hand, or if you’re going to go for the prettier one that may appear in the bush next season. It’s situational. But people should not expect that an open scholarship, or even two, will result in an appreciably better commodity down the line.

Just to put the terms in a different light, the choice is between taking 2 walkons in a season, or signing two ~550 OVR players (one will redshirt, the other is an ANQ) with cores starting in the 50s and 60s, but green and blue. They’re not guaranteed stars, or even starters, but they project to at least ~750 OVR level, and you know they are good D1 players as upperclassman. They have no value in the first season, limited value in the second, and then increasing in the 3rd and 4th (and 5th for the redshirt).

These two are available to you only if you’ve invested enough AP in them early on to keep lower level teams from digging in. So in other words, these guys will not be available to coaches using the “all in on one guy” approach. They are known commodities, they will be decent D1 players, and if you lose top targets to bad beat battles, or EE, they can help cover the gap.

I’m not saying it’s a slam dunk to sign these guys every year; I’m saying it’s bad advice to tell people to ignore them because they play zone.

"It’s hard to tell here if you’re intentionally obfuscating the point."

LOL

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2019 2:05:00 PM (view original):
"It’s hard to tell here if you’re intentionally obfuscating the point."

LOL

Value vs. potential value is not a “distinction without a difference”. Those are very different concepts, and this distinction is important when deciding who to recruit, and when. In case anyone is fuzzy, this is the point in question.

But like I said, I’m cool assuming we’re just quibbling over what “value” means in this game.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/10/2019 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2019 2:05:00 PM (view original):
"It’s hard to tell here if you’re intentionally obfuscating the point."

LOL

Value vs. potential value is not a “distinction without a difference”. Those are very different concepts, and this distinction is important when deciding who to recruit, and when. In case anyone is fuzzy, this is the point in question.

But like I said, I’m cool assuming we’re just quibbling over what “value” means in this game.

More SAT words in this thread than Princeton Review could teach you in a month.

Y'all's pedantry is rhapsodic.

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2019 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/10/2019 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2019 2:05:00 PM (view original):
"It’s hard to tell here if you’re intentionally obfuscating the point."

LOL

Value vs. potential value is not a “distinction without a difference”. Those are very different concepts, and this distinction is important when deciding who to recruit, and when. In case anyone is fuzzy, this is the point in question.

But like I said, I’m cool assuming we’re just quibbling over what “value” means in this game.

More SAT words in this thread than Princeton Review could teach you in a month.

Y'all's pedantry is rhapsodic.

I already dumbed down “obfuscating” to “fuzzy” for you, what more do you want?

Posted by shoe3 on 7/10/2019 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2019 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/10/2019 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2019 2:05:00 PM (view original):
"It’s hard to tell here if you’re intentionally obfuscating the point."

LOL

Value vs. potential value is not a “distinction without a difference”. Those are very different concepts, and this distinction is important when deciding who to recruit, and when. In case anyone is fuzzy, this is the point in question.

But like I said, I’m cool assuming we’re just quibbling over what “value” means in this game.

More SAT words in this thread than Princeton Review could teach you in a month.

Y'all's pedantry is rhapsodic.

I already dumbed down “obfuscating” to “fuzzy” for you, what more do you want?

shoe: How much dumber do you need me to make this?

kcsundevil: Yes.

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2019 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/10/2019 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2019 2:05:00 PM (view original):
"It’s hard to tell here if you’re intentionally obfuscating the point."

LOL

Value vs. potential value is not a “distinction without a difference”. Those are very different concepts, and this distinction is important when deciding who to recruit, and when. In case anyone is fuzzy, this is the point in question.

But like I said, I’m cool assuming we’re just quibbling over what “value” means in this game.

More SAT words in this thread than Princeton Review could teach you in a month.

Y'all's pedantry is rhapsodic.

Hahaha this is why no one understands me. I speak casual language. I guess I'm just too "common folk" for some here.

Hell i wouldn't doubt if half the time, me and shoe are saying the same thing! I just read any of it! Unless i break out the Websters!

And benis is correct..... i am saying what gillespie is saying. Just not as detailed