Posted by tkimble on 3/12/2017 8:05:00 PM (view original):
Saw 5 pages of comments on my topic and I got excited that people were debating my idea of re-implementing post-season cash! I thought it might get a discussion rolling on how to invigorate session 2 recruiting (and adding more $ into session 2 would definitely make it more interesting).

Now I'm a bit disappointed, but I honestly should've expected this from today's forums.

Any thread over three pages has changed from the original subject. And, quite possibly, devolved to a name-calling contest.

There was discussion about the cash thru most of it. So, if nothing else, you have that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2017 8:00:00 PM (view original):
If that's a burn, you're a simple-minded loser. Just sayin'.

Burn?

I want to have a debate and learn from others and gain more knowledge of the game from other people... This is what I used the forums for.. This is what everyone should use the forums for... Not yelling, screaming, and name calling to avoid the conversation with a alt-right classified person just to drown out my voice.

Posted by supersloth33 on 3/12/2017 7:20:00 PM (view original):
It's not an overall ratings thing, Bathtubhippo. I pointed out that without much exception, all the guys on the big board were top 20 talent when they were recruited at their position. The one exception was a guy who was 26th. What ranking were your players that left early? I'd suspect they were well within that range. SO, one could surmise that somewhere in the programming the top rated recruits are much much much more likely to leave early than the 193rd best Center that a D2 or even D3 could land. Now, you can come back at me with saying I've never recruited at D1 or even D2 so my opinion doesn't count, that's fine. I'm a logical thinker. Could you explain to me why there were NO PLAYERS on the big board that were rated lower than 26th at their position? Think that's a coincidence?

I get so tired of people whining CONSTANTLY about the same damn things over, and over, and over, and over again. Again, I may not have played D1 but that doesn't matter here. I've played this GAME long enough to know how fast things move. Has constant complaining moved things along faster in the past? Or is it more likely they will plod along at their own pace regardless of the incessant moaning and groaning? So tell me, what is hoped to be accomplished by the complaining?

I don't mean to sound like a dick here either. I realize that D3 isn't nearly as competitive recruiting wise as D1. Never said it was. But the rules are the same for all D1 coaches right? Some D1 aren't recruiting with different rules than others, are they? Absent of that, the cream will rise to the top. I don't know this, so could someone please fill me in? Since 3.0 was implemented has there been more first time NT winners or mid major teams winning division 1 NT titles? If there has, I'm sorry, I'm way off base. But from what I've seen and heard, it appears many of the same coaches that were consistent winners before are winning now. Maybe it's a matter of adapting to the new conditions better. Can anyone explain why that wouldn't be the case if what I believe is true? And if you say there haven't been enough time yet for the changes to really make a difference, shouldn't the complaining stop then too, since not enough time under the new system to see how things really work out???

The first part here is exactly right. I've been watching draft boards in the worlds I play in since beta started. With very few exceptions, EE possibilities on the projected big board are top 20 in their class at their position. The majority of EEs actually declaring are top 12 in their class/position. If you're recruiting a guy from roughly the top 100 overall who projects to 90+ in the cores for his position, chances are he's going to end up on the Big Board before his senior season. Can you predict precisely who will go when you recruit? No. Can you predict who might go? Absolutely.

To the OP's original point, I don't think adding post season cash to the second period has much of an impact at all. Most of the time, the battles are winding down and already firmly entrenched, especially at D1 where they've spent all their HV and CV on recruits. In D3 I can say that adding more cash in the second period might have more of an impact since the recruiting budget is so much tighter, but there are so many variables. If I'm battling a fellow D3, having more conference power not only helped me with my preference, now you're adding more cash to finish off battles with, since I probably haven't maxed out my CV and HV. Seems a bit like a double dip to me. Now, if I'm going up against a D2 either sim or coach and suddenly I have more cash because I play in a dominant D3 conference where he might play in a solo D2 league, not only do I double dip but also not necessarily fair to the D2 since my money means just about as much as his and I just got more at a supposedly lesser level NT.

As far as the 3 signing periods before signings, I could never get behind that. If it were the old system and each cycle was only 3 hours, ok, maybe. But at 6 hours a pop, you've just added almost another day of recruiting. It also seems a bit more like another concession to D1 at the detriment to the other two divisions.

I can accept a good debate. However people whining and begging for postseason cash or extra infusion of cash for a second period run sound like the guy from High School that regularly would blow his wad early then beg and whine for another chance with the hot girl.

Posted by ftbeaglesfan on 3/12/2017 10:34:00 PM (view original):
I can accept a good debate. However people whining and begging for postseason cash or extra infusion of cash for a second period run sound like the guy from High School that regularly would blow his wad early then beg and whine for another chance with the hot girl.

Have you encountered that situation before? Oddly specific.

But, on this path, I disagree with post-season cash for simple reasons of economics. If you have 34k in funds, you have 34k in funds. Manage your 34k well and you need no postseason cash. Manage it poorly, and your team will be poor, as deserves to be the case. We're playing chess, gentlemen. Cut out this chutes and ladders bullshit.

Work with "troubled" teenage youth all day you hear the things they say and the analogy just seemed to fit.

Chess is a good analogy of what we should be doing. Chutes and Ladders takes longer than it takes some of them to spend their money....

You said it better than I did ab

Some things bear repeating:

"With very few exceptions, EE possibilities on the projected big board are top 20 in their class at their position. The majority of EEs actually declaring are top 12 in their class/position. If you're recruiting a guy from roughly the top 100 overall who projects to 90+ in the cores for his position, chances are he's going to end up on the Big Board before his senior season. Can you predict precisely who will go when you recruit? No. Can you predict who might go? Absolutely."

"If you have 34k in funds, you have 34k in funds. Manage your 34k well and you need no postseason cash. Manage it poorly, and your team will be poor, as deserves to be the case."

+1

If you have no experience and suck at the game your teams will suck and everyone will hate you when you hide behind an alternate pretending to be a good coach. You don't need to promote 3.0 to help overcome your crap ability.

Pretty much the same thing except its about you spud.