Posted by zorzii on 11/14/2016 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Fix Ees, I have no idea why people are defending something bad for the game, even with only one ee.

I don't get it either. There's a vocal (hopefully) minority that seems fine: (a) punishing players for having success; and (b) incentivizing players to not recruit their best team. I do not understand how that helps the game, or is fun -- which is presumably the point we play this silly game.

Posted by johnsensing on 11/14/2016 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/14/2016 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Fix Ees, I have no idea why people are defending something bad for the game, even with only one ee.

I don't get it either. There's a vocal (hopefully) minority that seems fine: (a) punishing players for having success; and (b) incentivizing players to not recruit their best team. I do not understand how that helps the game, or is fun -- which is presumably the point we play this silly game.

Socialism

Posted by johnsensing on 11/14/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/14/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/14/2016 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 11/14/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
I understand your position, stewdog. I just don't agree entirely with your assessment. It's not injustice. We're customers, not shareholders, we don't own any piece of the game. The game can change at any time. We all have to make our own assessments on whether or not we want to continue to be customers.

The game has changed considerably at high D1. As you say, you've been aware of how these changes might affect your teams for a while; I believe we were having this discussion over a year ago, in fact. You could have adjusted your approach to position your team for the transition, but you chose not to. I don't blame you, but now that decision is paying off. I do empathize with guys who don't pay attention to the forums and didn't do beta.

He couldn't Pk. I think people who haven't played d1 for a while choose to not see what isn't working. Ees is one of the many problems

False. He could have (adjusted his approach), he chose not to. Instead of only recruiting early entry candidates for the past 4 seasons, he could have started a more balanced approach, targeted more 4 year players. Stewdog is a great coach. I have tons of respect for him. If he cared to adapt to this system, he could have done so, and would have been (could still be) a great coach in 3.0.

Read: "Under the 2.0 rules, prior to the implementation of 3.0, stewdog should have deliberately made his team worse." This may be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board -- and that is really saying something. If you're trying to convince people you're right about things, koop, maybe don't start by advocating self-sabotage?

I was taken to task for disagreeing with you once before. Apparently you have been around long enough that a few people think you walk on water. But absurd posts like this do nothing for your credibility.

And then "There's a vocal (hopefully) minority that seems fine: (a) punishing players for having success; and (b) incentivizing players to not recruit their best team." That completely misrepresents the discussion. If you cannot substantiate your position on the merits of the matter, such a post does nothing but further erode your credibility.

It is an interesting argument when debated on the merits. Pkoopman presents a compelling argument on the merits to oppose your position. It would elevate the conversation if you will present the merits to counter pkoopman's points. Thanks.

Posted by johnsensing on 11/14/2016 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 11/14/2016 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Fix Ees, I have no idea why people are defending something bad for the game, even with only one ee.

I don't get it either. There's a vocal (hopefully) minority that seems fine: (a) punishing players for having success; and (b) incentivizing players to not recruit their best team. I do not understand how that helps the game, or is fun -- which is presumably the point we play this silly game.

No. It's not "punishing" success. It's declining to systematically perpetuate success. 3.0 isn't remotely "socialism", nor is it "random", nor does it produce anything like "parity".

Dont lose sight of the topic of this thread. You can plan for early entries. It's possible. Part of that planning can include adapting gameplay and recruiting strategies. The game is different now. If you don't want to adapt your strategy, you can continue to only go all in on the top level recruits. I'm sure great coaches will continue to use this approach, and field very talented 8-man rotations, taking lots of walk-ons, and crossing their fingers that those guys stay at least 3 years.

If thats the strategy you choose to pursue, that's fine. You don't need to be protected from the consequences of that strategy. Losing an advantage you've always enjoyed might feel like "punishment". It's not. There's no rational reason that a multi-player commodity game that people pay for should operate like winners ball.

Yep . ...100% convinced Spudhole is intentionally trying to be an azzhle. Well played!!

No one can come off as such a tool naturally.

3.0 doesn't promote parity? Seriously? Statements like that drown out anything that might have actual value.

Posted by vandydave on 11/14/2016 7:43:00 PM (view original):
3.0 doesn't promote parity? Seriously? Statements like that drown out anything that might have actual value.

Why misquote me? I said it doesn't "produce" parity. And it doesn't, nor will it. Great coaches will adapt and others will emerge.

Does it "promote" parity? Relative to 2.0, of course. It's designed to more evenly spread out elite talent, (which puts the emphasis on long-term planning, and day-to-day gameplanning). If you want to say it is closer to parity, I have no problem with that (and I think that makes a better and more competitive multi-player commodity game). But that's not what people typically mean when they derisively call it "Hoops Parity" (for example).