Thanks for the insight on me. Justcontinuing to focus on that tells me a lot. Also, not a big fan of the argument that states, " that is the way it is so it has to stay that way. But enjoyed how you jumped to I'm an idiot to change the subject. Also failing to see the comparison between a guy getting three minutes off the bench with a rl starter? If my assertion that there are some problems were as baseless as you confess it to be, you wouldn't feel the need to even respond and especially not in wuch an emotional way. Its a shame its the same four or five people over and over.

Posted by fd343ny on 3/15/2013 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tbird9423 on 3/15/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):

What I meant by small-minded was to be open to looking at an issue from multiple perspectives.  The comment you make, "Any minimum needs to be expressed in effort and not in $$," is exactly what I mean.  Why is it that you think that?  I can guess that you are assuming that 3 home visits to a Cali player from UCLA should mean more than 1 visit from Miami but maybe recruits care more about the money spent on them than the time spent with them?  I don't know but would be helpful if you offered some kind of reasoning.  Let's try to close the loop holes that allow some to game the system in a way I am sure was never intended.  How long would any college coach last if they offered 2-4x the number of open scholarships they have on day one of recruiting???   I guess I am completely at a loss for some people's failure to see the game as lopsided and that as the main reason for stagnation.  If you want WIS to work on the game, it has to make sense for them financially.  For that to happen, we need lots of new people willing to stick around beyond 1-2 seasons and that is going to take someone (WIS or US) finding out why that isn't happening now. 
    

the reasoning is that all of recruiting is based on effort not $$ - the effect on a recruit of a home visit is a home visit whether you do it from a distance that causes it to cost $300 or $800.  It would be contrary to the entire scheme of recruiting in this game to base any criterion on $$ spent rather than the effort that the recruit saw.  Frankly, this is so obvious as a core aspect of the game that I didnt think I needed to explain it.  Going back forever in dev chats and other discussions the developers have confirmed that it is effort not the cost of that effort that matters,

I thought everyone knew that.  I was wrong.  If I post again on your threads I will keep in mind that one must explain basic aspects of the game for you

edited later - to note just to be sure you understand - the effort then is adjusted by the prestige of the school - so effort of X by an A+ school will have more effect than effort of X by a B school (or you can think of this as less effort is required - which is mathematically equivalent - by equivalent, I mean an equal effect just expressed differently - by differently I mean that it would be the same except that it isnt - got it?

The edited paragraph at the bottom woke my napping son up from me laughing.  Thanks a lot, fd.