Population Data 1/30/19 Topic

Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
4/25/2017 10:00 AM
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
When was that Mully? What world, what season?
4/25/2017 10:15 AM
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
Did you get suddenly dense, mully? I said what I meant. I'm not spud, or anyone else. I don't play this game to dominate, so I didn't utilize the tricks like calculating opponents conference cash, figuring out the exact ratio of HV to CV at distance, or waking up in the middle of the night in hopes that someone else jumped first on an opponent's targets so I could pick away. I knew those D1 tricks, but that game wasn't fun to play, so I didn't use them. Their existence made the game worse. Now the game is better and more fun. Not perfect, but much better.
4/25/2017 10:29 AM
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
Did you get suddenly dense, mully? I said what I meant. I'm not spud, or anyone else. I don't play this game to dominate, so I didn't utilize the tricks like calculating opponents conference cash, figuring out the exact ratio of HV to CV at distance, or waking up in the middle of the night in hopes that someone else jumped first on an opponent's targets so I could pick away. I knew those D1 tricks, but that game wasn't fun to play, so I didn't use them. Their existence made the game worse. Now the game is better and more fun. Not perfect, but much better.
Honestly, this is how you're sounding PK. I don't doubt that you find the new game more fun. That's totally your opinion and you have the right to it.

But you're sounding like someone who blames the game. You had Va Tech nearby and couldn't compete for recruits. That Va Tech wasn't a powerhouse. In their final 2 seasons, they were about .500. But you still couldn't figure out how to compete for recruits against another school. Or you knew what to do but didn't feel like it?

All this does is add more gas to the narrative that people who love 3.0 and support it couldn't hack it in the previous game and were bitter. Maybe you don't see it that way but you certainly sound like it.
4/25/2017 10:38 AM
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
Did you get suddenly dense, mully? I said what I meant. I'm not spud, or anyone else. I don't play this game to dominate, so I didn't utilize the tricks like calculating opponents conference cash, figuring out the exact ratio of HV to CV at distance, or waking up in the middle of the night in hopes that someone else jumped first on an opponent's targets so I could pick away. I knew those D1 tricks, but that game wasn't fun to play, so I didn't use them. Their existence made the game worse. Now the game is better and more fun. Not perfect, but much better.
LOL ......you looked at me coaches manual!!!

I've been dense since December when I retired!
4/25/2017 10:46 AM
Posted by Benis on 4/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
Did you get suddenly dense, mully? I said what I meant. I'm not spud, or anyone else. I don't play this game to dominate, so I didn't utilize the tricks like calculating opponents conference cash, figuring out the exact ratio of HV to CV at distance, or waking up in the middle of the night in hopes that someone else jumped first on an opponent's targets so I could pick away. I knew those D1 tricks, but that game wasn't fun to play, so I didn't use them. Their existence made the game worse. Now the game is better and more fun. Not perfect, but much better.
Honestly, this is how you're sounding PK. I don't doubt that you find the new game more fun. That's totally your opinion and you have the right to it.

But you're sounding like someone who blames the game. You had Va Tech nearby and couldn't compete for recruits. That Va Tech wasn't a powerhouse. In their final 2 seasons, they were about .500. But you still couldn't figure out how to compete for recruits against another school. Or you knew what to do but didn't feel like it?

All this does is add more gas to the narrative that people who love 3.0 and support it couldn't hack it in the previous game and were bitter. Maybe you don't see it that way but you certainly sound like it.
No, I don't sound like that. That's the narrative you're projecting into it.

The point wasn't Va Tech. The point was that the conference was full, and half of them were perennial A to A+. Va Tech was the one that left, but it would have been similar had it been Maryland, Duke, Ga Tech, Wake Forest, UNC, BC, etc. There's a reason why mully didn't bring up his stint at Arkansas in Naismith. The southeast was saturated. And when recruiting is deterministic, it *absolutely does* favor the risk averse.
4/25/2017 10:51 AM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/25/2017 10:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
When was that Mully? What world, what season?
Smith World Trenton. Got the number of seasons to final four wrong. Although I was happy about where the program was at by season #5. Most of the "younger generation" don't have the patience to realize it took 4-5 seasons for a full rebuild.
58 mullycj 26-8 9-3 11-3 6-2 10-6 9 16 14 A NT At-large Bid
NT (Final Four)
57 mullycj 24-7 10-2 11-3 3-2 11-5 23 30 50 A- NT At-large Bid
NT (Sweet 16)
56 mullycj 24-7 9-2 12-3 3-2 13-3 18 13 16 A- Conf Champion
NT At-large Bid
NT (Sweet 16)
55 mullycj 24-7 12-1 9-4 3-2 11-5 33 67 B+ NT At-large Bid
NT (2nd Round)
54 mullycj 22-7 12-1 9-4 1-2 11-5 16 25 B+ NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)
53 mullycj 25-7 11-2 10-3 4-2 11-5 22 24 53 B+ NT At-large Bid
NT (Sweet 16)
52 mullycj 19-13 9-5 7-7 3-1 7-9 62 71 B- PI (2nd Round)
51 mullycj 14-14 7-6 6-7 1-1 4-12 118 89 C+
50 mullycj 11-17 6-7 4-9 1-1 7-9 128 54 C
49 mullycj 12-15 11-4 1-10 0-1 6-10 120 48 C+
48 Sim AI 12-16 8-8 3-7 1-1 5-11 148 77 C
47 loneranger 4-23 2-10 2-12 0-1 2-14 286 140 C+
4/25/2017 10:58 AM (edited)
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 4/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
Did you get suddenly dense, mully? I said what I meant. I'm not spud, or anyone else. I don't play this game to dominate, so I didn't utilize the tricks like calculating opponents conference cash, figuring out the exact ratio of HV to CV at distance, or waking up in the middle of the night in hopes that someone else jumped first on an opponent's targets so I could pick away. I knew those D1 tricks, but that game wasn't fun to play, so I didn't use them. Their existence made the game worse. Now the game is better and more fun. Not perfect, but much better.
Honestly, this is how you're sounding PK. I don't doubt that you find the new game more fun. That's totally your opinion and you have the right to it.

But you're sounding like someone who blames the game. You had Va Tech nearby and couldn't compete for recruits. That Va Tech wasn't a powerhouse. In their final 2 seasons, they were about .500. But you still couldn't figure out how to compete for recruits against another school. Or you knew what to do but didn't feel like it?

All this does is add more gas to the narrative that people who love 3.0 and support it couldn't hack it in the previous game and were bitter. Maybe you don't see it that way but you certainly sound like it.
No, I don't sound like that. That's the narrative you're projecting into it.

The point wasn't Va Tech. The point was that the conference was full, and half of them were perennial A to A+. Va Tech was the one that left, but it would have been similar had it been Maryland, Duke, Ga Tech, Wake Forest, UNC, BC, etc. There's a reason why mully didn't bring up his stint at Arkansas in Naismith. The southeast was saturated. And when recruiting is deterministic, it *absolutely does* favor the risk averse.
Well, the good news is that we no longer need to worry about full conferences anymore.
4/25/2017 11:01 AM
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 4/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
Did you get suddenly dense, mully? I said what I meant. I'm not spud, or anyone else. I don't play this game to dominate, so I didn't utilize the tricks like calculating opponents conference cash, figuring out the exact ratio of HV to CV at distance, or waking up in the middle of the night in hopes that someone else jumped first on an opponent's targets so I could pick away. I knew those D1 tricks, but that game wasn't fun to play, so I didn't use them. Their existence made the game worse. Now the game is better and more fun. Not perfect, but much better.
Honestly, this is how you're sounding PK. I don't doubt that you find the new game more fun. That's totally your opinion and you have the right to it.

But you're sounding like someone who blames the game. You had Va Tech nearby and couldn't compete for recruits. That Va Tech wasn't a powerhouse. In their final 2 seasons, they were about .500. But you still couldn't figure out how to compete for recruits against another school. Or you knew what to do but didn't feel like it?

All this does is add more gas to the narrative that people who love 3.0 and support it couldn't hack it in the previous game and were bitter. Maybe you don't see it that way but you certainly sound like it.
No, I don't sound like that. That's the narrative you're projecting into it.

The point wasn't Va Tech. The point was that the conference was full, and half of them were perennial A to A+. Va Tech was the one that left, but it would have been similar had it been Maryland, Duke, Ga Tech, Wake Forest, UNC, BC, etc. There's a reason why mully didn't bring up his stint at Arkansas in Naismith. The southeast was saturated. And when recruiting is deterministic, it *absolutely does* favor the risk averse.
LMAO Shoe....... I left Naismith because 3.0 sucks balls and I had no energy to devote time for 2 teams with the crap they rolled out, not because I couldn't build a power at Arkansas. I was well on the way with my classes to competing with the top teams in the SEC after 6 seasons. You think those were SIMAI recruits that got Arkansas to the Sweet 16 in season #94? And that was with SIMAI game planning that changed the O/D to all Fs.
94 Sim AI 20-13 9-5 6-6 5-2 9-7 19 1 B+ NT At-large Bid
NT (Sweet 16)
93 Sim AI 21-8 9-4 11-2 1-2 10-6 52 80 B- NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)
92 mullycj 12-15 8-4 4-10 0-1 4-12 117 80 B-
91 mullycj 10-17 6-6 4-10 0-1 4-12 135 51 B
90 mullycj 16-12 8-5 8-5 0-2 6-10 43 22 B NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)
89 mullycj 21-9 8-3 11-4 2-2 9-7 36 55 B- NT At-large Bid
NT (2nd Round)
88 mullycj 13-15 3-8 9-6 1-1 5-11 112 74 C
87 mullycj 2-25 1-13 1-11 0-1 0-16 226 43 C+
4/25/2017 11:04 AM
Posted by Benis on 4/25/2017 11:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 4/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
Did you get suddenly dense, mully? I said what I meant. I'm not spud, or anyone else. I don't play this game to dominate, so I didn't utilize the tricks like calculating opponents conference cash, figuring out the exact ratio of HV to CV at distance, or waking up in the middle of the night in hopes that someone else jumped first on an opponent's targets so I could pick away. I knew those D1 tricks, but that game wasn't fun to play, so I didn't use them. Their existence made the game worse. Now the game is better and more fun. Not perfect, but much better.
Honestly, this is how you're sounding PK. I don't doubt that you find the new game more fun. That's totally your opinion and you have the right to it.

But you're sounding like someone who blames the game. You had Va Tech nearby and couldn't compete for recruits. That Va Tech wasn't a powerhouse. In their final 2 seasons, they were about .500. But you still couldn't figure out how to compete for recruits against another school. Or you knew what to do but didn't feel like it?

All this does is add more gas to the narrative that people who love 3.0 and support it couldn't hack it in the previous game and were bitter. Maybe you don't see it that way but you certainly sound like it.
No, I don't sound like that. That's the narrative you're projecting into it.

The point wasn't Va Tech. The point was that the conference was full, and half of them were perennial A to A+. Va Tech was the one that left, but it would have been similar had it been Maryland, Duke, Ga Tech, Wake Forest, UNC, BC, etc. There's a reason why mully didn't bring up his stint at Arkansas in Naismith. The southeast was saturated. And when recruiting is deterministic, it *absolutely does* favor the risk averse.
Well, the good news is that we no longer need to worry about full conferences anymore.
Even where they are full, it shouldn't be a worry. A functional game would enable competitiveness for recruits within the conference. 3.0 does that. Not many conferences have more than 2 full letter grade spread, and even at that point, lower teams can still win recruits if the higher team has not prioritized or valued the recruit as highly.

I don't mind playing in full conferences, played in one with mully, surely one of the top D2 conferences across all worlds for a stretch. As long as it's competitive, and doesn't become winner's ball, or first in, first up (FarmVille), there's no problem. There's just no rational reason why a C prestige team should be so heavily disincentivized to compete with an A prestige team for *any* recruit. That's bad game design. It's non-competitive. Is that me "blaming the game"? Sure.
4/25/2017 11:18 AM
Maybe I'm slow but all of your Farmville references are flying over my head. I really have no idea what they mean.
4/25/2017 11:22 AM
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 4/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
Did you get suddenly dense, mully? I said what I meant. I'm not spud, or anyone else. I don't play this game to dominate, so I didn't utilize the tricks like calculating opponents conference cash, figuring out the exact ratio of HV to CV at distance, or waking up in the middle of the night in hopes that someone else jumped first on an opponent's targets so I could pick away. I knew those D1 tricks, but that game wasn't fun to play, so I didn't use them. Their existence made the game worse. Now the game is better and more fun. Not perfect, but much better.
Honestly, this is how you're sounding PK. I don't doubt that you find the new game more fun. That's totally your opinion and you have the right to it.

But you're sounding like someone who blames the game. You had Va Tech nearby and couldn't compete for recruits. That Va Tech wasn't a powerhouse. In their final 2 seasons, they were about .500. But you still couldn't figure out how to compete for recruits against another school. Or you knew what to do but didn't feel like it?

All this does is add more gas to the narrative that people who love 3.0 and support it couldn't hack it in the previous game and were bitter. Maybe you don't see it that way but you certainly sound like it.
No, I don't sound like that. That's the narrative you're projecting into it.

The point wasn't Va Tech. The point was that the conference was full, and half of them were perennial A to A+. Va Tech was the one that left, but it would have been similar had it been Maryland, Duke, Ga Tech, Wake Forest, UNC, BC, etc. There's a reason why mully didn't bring up his stint at Arkansas in Naismith. The southeast was saturated. And when recruiting is deterministic, it *absolutely does* favor the risk averse.
LMAO Shoe....... I left Naismith because 3.0 sucks balls and I had no energy to devote time for 2 teams with the crap they rolled out, not because I couldn't build a power at Arkansas. I was well on the way with my classes to competing with the top teams in the SEC after 6 seasons. You think those were SIMAI recruits that got Arkansas to the Sweet 16 in season #94? And that was with SIMAI game planning that changed the O/D to all Fs.
94 Sim AI 20-13 9-5 6-6 5-2 9-7 19 1 B+ NT At-large Bid
NT (Sweet 16)
93 Sim AI 21-8 9-4 11-2 1-2 10-6 52 80 B- NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)
92 mullycj 12-15 8-4 4-10 0-1 4-12 117 80 B-
91 mullycj 10-17 6-6 4-10 0-1 4-12 135 51 B
90 mullycj 16-12 8-5 8-5 0-2 6-10 43 22 B NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)
89 mullycj 21-9 8-3 11-4 2-2 9-7 36 55 B- NT At-large Bid
NT (2nd Round)
88 mullycj 13-15 3-8 9-6 1-1 5-11 112 74 C
87 mullycj 2-25 1-13 1-11 0-1 0-16 226 43 C+
Settle down there, big guy, I'm not the one who tried to start a p!$$ing match. Our teams were virtually the same, except you were in a weaker conference. The fact remains, you chose a different team to illustrate your mastery of 2.0. I don't blame you.
4/25/2017 11:38 AM (edited)
Posted by Benis on 4/25/2017 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Maybe I'm slow but all of your Farmville references are flying over my head. I really have no idea what they mean.
A lot of people played FarmVille. Literally millions. For a year or two. I signed up somewhere early in Facebook, and played for 20 minutes or so, then never opened it again. It is one of those "massively multiplayer online games" where you perform mundane tasks, buy things, etc. It's a first in, first up set up, where competitively - if you care to compete with something like that - it heavily favors just being there first.

I hear they made a second version that is currently outperforming the first, though neither is anywhere near as popular as when it was new.
4/25/2017 11:37 AM
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 4/25/2017 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 10:29:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 4/25/2017 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/25/2017 8:42:00 AM (view original):
He left year 88. The recruits I got that year were the basis of my first decent team in that conference in year 91 (last 2.0 season). My point is what I said above. I had "paid dues" to get there, then as the doormat that had been sim AI and near winless in conference for 4 years, I had to wait until someone above me left before I had access to decent ACC level recruits in my own state. That doesn't happen now. 51 doesn't beat 49 100% of the time anymore in recruiting.

The recruiting system used to be non-competitive, and favored the risk averse. Now it's competitive. I don't enjoy 3.0 because my teams are so much better than they used to be. I enjoy 3.0 because it's more fun to play.
What you really mean is you never figured out how to be successful in HD 2.0 while others had. Isn't that really what most of the 3.0 loyalists (Spud) are saying?

I took a Texas Tech team that had been 4-23 just two seasons prior and got them to the Final Four in 7 seasons while having predominant A+ powers Texas and Kansas swooping up all top talent. I also paid dues through those 7 seasons and figured out how to compete for recruits with the big boys. Those that never figured it out blamed the system. It's not a matter of being risk adverse, it's was always about knowing what you could reach for and what you couldn't.
Did you get suddenly dense, mully? I said what I meant. I'm not spud, or anyone else. I don't play this game to dominate, so I didn't utilize the tricks like calculating opponents conference cash, figuring out the exact ratio of HV to CV at distance, or waking up in the middle of the night in hopes that someone else jumped first on an opponent's targets so I could pick away. I knew those D1 tricks, but that game wasn't fun to play, so I didn't use them. Their existence made the game worse. Now the game is better and more fun. Not perfect, but much better.
Honestly, this is how you're sounding PK. I don't doubt that you find the new game more fun. That's totally your opinion and you have the right to it.

But you're sounding like someone who blames the game. You had Va Tech nearby and couldn't compete for recruits. That Va Tech wasn't a powerhouse. In their final 2 seasons, they were about .500. But you still couldn't figure out how to compete for recruits against another school. Or you knew what to do but didn't feel like it?

All this does is add more gas to the narrative that people who love 3.0 and support it couldn't hack it in the previous game and were bitter. Maybe you don't see it that way but you certainly sound like it.
No, I don't sound like that. That's the narrative you're projecting into it.

The point wasn't Va Tech. The point was that the conference was full, and half of them were perennial A to A+. Va Tech was the one that left, but it would have been similar had it been Maryland, Duke, Ga Tech, Wake Forest, UNC, BC, etc. There's a reason why mully didn't bring up his stint at Arkansas in Naismith. The southeast was saturated. And when recruiting is deterministic, it *absolutely does* favor the risk averse.
LMAO Shoe....... I left Naismith because 3.0 sucks balls and I had no energy to devote time for 2 teams with the crap they rolled out, not because I couldn't build a power at Arkansas. I was well on the way with my classes to competing with the top teams in the SEC after 6 seasons. You think those were SIMAI recruits that got Arkansas to the Sweet 16 in season #94? And that was with SIMAI game planning that changed the O/D to all Fs.
94 Sim AI 20-13 9-5 6-6 5-2 9-7 19 1 B+ NT At-large Bid
NT (Sweet 16)
93 Sim AI 21-8 9-4 11-2 1-2 10-6 52 80 B- NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)
92 mullycj 12-15 8-4 4-10 0-1 4-12 117 80 B-
91 mullycj 10-17 6-6 4-10 0-1 4-12 135 51 B
90 mullycj 16-12 8-5 8-5 0-2 6-10 43 22 B NT At-large Bid
NT (1st Round)
89 mullycj 21-9 8-3 11-4 2-2 9-7 36 55 B- NT At-large Bid
NT (2nd Round)
88 mullycj 13-15 3-8 9-6 1-1 5-11 112 74 C
87 mullycj 2-25 1-13 1-11 0-1 0-16 226 43 C+
Settle down there, big guy, I'm not the one who tried to start a p!$$ing match. Our teams were virtually the same, except you were in a weaker conference. The fact remains, you chose a different team to illustrate your mastery of 2.0. I don't blame you.
Well I could have chosen Pittsburgh as well but they weren't in as bad of shape.

But those aren't "tricks". They are tools/strategies to use to succeed in top DI. But I am hearing you say, you don't want to work as hard as others to get to top DI because it becomes less fun for you then? Correct?

4/25/2017 12:27 PM
"But those aren't "tricks". They are tools/strategies to use to succeed in top DI. But I am hearing you say, you don't want to work as hard as others to get to top DI because it becomes less fun for you then? Correct?"

Well no, I don't mind the work, if it's a reasonable simulation of college basketball recruiting. The work of 2.0 was gimmicky and mundane, and nothing like what college basketball coaches do. They don't wake up in the middle of the night to see if someone has started a reverse snowball on a rival. They don't break out a map and a calculator to determine if they can get more influence with a recruit by doing 80 home visits, or having him visit campus 30 times. And a C prestige Minnesota doesn't lay down and let A prestige Michigan St walk off with a 3 star local recruit with no fight - and when they do fight, they are not absurdly punished for losing.

And they certainly don't send a scout to visit a pg 10 times without bringing back any information on his ball handling potential.
4/25/2017 12:46 PM (edited)
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...24 Next ▸
Population Data 1/30/19 Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.