So as to bring an end to the game, the definition of "winning the game" is having the most territories on July 4. Since winning criteria was made AFTER the game started and feels pretty arbitrary, I'd much rather pursue the original objective of eliminating other teams. Both W and OSU are trapped behind our alliance's lines, I'd say lets squeeze them into tighter and tighter spaces and finally push them off the board. That'd be a lot more fun/gratifying then trying for the most territories on July 4.
Could be the ally is not strong enough to hold it and the anticipation is that an enemy force will attack the territory. So, while you're attacking an ally, you're really trying to prevent an enemy from taking the territory.
Game ends on July 4, whether or not someone has taken over. Winner is declared as team with most territories. Without this hard stop, it would probably go on a very long time.
Your order is to attack a territory, not a team. So, if you were given an order to attack Wyoming, you would attack the territory defined as Wyoming even though the team Wyoming is no longer in the game.
I don't know the mechanics of the game well, but it seems really hard to knock a team out. Once they get down to a very few territories, all their star power gets concentrated. While an attacking team with lots of territories has a lot to defend.
Looks like a front (being roughly defined by the Ohio river and the Mississippi River south of Kentucky) is forming. Would be great to kick out the Red teams out of territories behind that front so our Alliance could push west without worrying about having to defend/attack territories behind the front.
This gets said often, but from a football perspective, why does that make sense? If a player is going into their fourth year is buried on the depth chart and will graduate, they can stick around another year or they can transfer. Either way they don't play in games, but can practice. The advantage of transferring is that they can spend the year learning the new team's system so the following year the can better compete for playing time.
Obviously, if they're that close to graduating it probably makes sense to get the degree.
How do you ever knock someone out of the game? Doesn't fewer territories just mean that that team's collective star power is more concentrated and therefore that team is more likely to win battles to/from their few held territories?
This seems like a pretty unimaginative way to end the game. Would have been better if they started giving a bonus multiplier for the number of territories you hold, with that multiplier exponentially increasing over time (for a given number of territories held).
It could absolutely make sense for him to transfer after next year even if he is not ready to graduate.
Scenario 1, he is second on the depth chart (or worse he is below 2nd) and he doesn't want to play a backup role in his fourth year. So transfers to new school where he'd sit out the first year and could play the second. But he gets to learn the new school's system while he waits. Seems like he'd be better off learning the new system so he be ready to play in his last year. The risk is that he misses some backup role game snaps (would could be meaningful if the starter goes down for any extended period of time). Of course, if he is 3rd string or lower, then that risk is lower (bus not impossible as we saw last year).
Scenario 2, he is not on track to graduate after 4 years. If he stays for his fourth year at Michigan and does not graduate before the 5 season, he can't graduate transfer. So, either he stays at Michigan for year 5 or calls it a college career.
Scenario 3, The rules change to make transfers not have to sit out a year.
Scenario 4, he just wants out for whatever reason.
Scenario 5, I'm not sure exactly how this one works, but if he is willing to pay his own pay (ie not be on scholarship at the new school, does he have to sit out a year?
Not sure I get the advantage that Neb would gain by turning on someone in their alliance. Being the strongest team in that alliance, it woud seem to be to Nebraska;s favor to keep that alliance going to knock out strong teams in the other alliance. Then, since Nebraska is the strongest, they'd have a leg up when the in-fighting in their alliance begins.
Red team has lots of members with territories several (many) turns away from the alliance. The alliance needs to eliminate chaos, set a front, and eliminate the rogue states in our midst. Seems to me that is a lot to ask but if chaos and OSU continue to control territories in the east, it is a matter of time.
Each of the territories Texas controls borders at least one red team territory, so they could theoretically be eliminated in one turn. GT and Clemson are one day away from being in the same spot.
Hopefully we can take Kent without giving up another surrounding territory to Ohio. That would give us a clear front. Then Clemson and Michigan can march south to try and clear out VT, OSU and chaos and help fortify the Alliance.
Team Chaos and particularly adding players from schools that were knocked out into Team Chaos was a poorly thought out concept. So, when we knock out OSU, they get added into Team Chaos and we have to continue to fend them off.
I can see the complaint if it was pushing other content off the board too quickly, but even that wouldn't be a problem for a true MGoAddict because they are here all the time anyways and miss nothing.
It seems premature to jump to some major conclusion about how we've got a huge problem developing qbs.
Speight, Malzone and Morris weren't superstars under Harbaugh, but he inherited them.
Okorn was brought in as a flier after looking around the qb room.
Who knows, maybe it was a talent issue and JH did a great job getting those guys are far as they got.
D McCaffrey was a skinny true freshman last year.
Imho, Peters was the only real evidence that can be relied upon. Sure he wasn't a superstar last year, but he was only a RS freshman. Further, it is only one fuzzy data point.
Using one off examples like Wyoming and SDSU is ridiculous. More likely they hit the lottery than any thing else. Just because WMU had Corey Davis, it doesn't make them the standard for wr development.
Just a guess. It seems like there are two paths to get a waiver. Path 1 involves both teams requesting NCAA to grant the waiver. Path 2 involves the new team to request the waiver under some type of hardship without agreement of the original team.
Seems like Michigan originally was going down path 2. Ole Miss offered to take path 1 (maybe because the NCAA pushed them there because the NCAA didn't want to make the hard decison and/or set precendent, or maybe because Ole Miss didn't want to be outed). The attorney's statement is thus correct in that this verdict (using path 1) wouldn't have been possible without Old Miss' approval. This does not mean that path 2 would not have been effective even withouth Ole Miss' approval. It only means that path 1 was chosen in some type of settlement agreement.
Recent Comments
Wisky, wounded but not yet dead. Lets finish 'em off.
So as to bring an end to the game, the definition of "winning the game" is having the most territories on July 4. Since winning criteria was made AFTER the game started and feels pretty arbitrary, I'd much rather pursue the original objective of eliminating other teams. Both W and OSU are trapped behind our alliance's lines, I'd say lets squeeze them into tighter and tighter spaces and finally push them off the board. That'd be a lot more fun/gratifying then trying for the most territories on July 4.
I can't believe we've taken 2 two 2020 commits and neither is an OL. We're doomed.
I was torn between whether it was as you described or whether he was actually complaining.
Not with the size of this avalanche.
Does that mean the user who "won" 200 points the other day for being a Reddit CFB risk MVP really got nothing?
Thanks for the effort despite JDon's spiteful counter attempt.
Osu and Wisky are both isolated in the NE. Hopefully our alliance can keep them trapped and slowly push them east and eventually eliminate them.
Clemson is occupying some resources from OSU and Wisky, which is a good thing.
Could be the ally is not strong enough to hold it and the anticipation is that an enemy force will attack the territory. So, while you're attacking an ally, you're really trying to prevent an enemy from taking the territory.
Game ends on July 4, whether or not someone has taken over. Winner is declared as team with most territories. Without this hard stop, it would probably go on a very long time.
Your order is to attack a territory, not a team. So, if you were given an order to attack Wyoming, you would attack the territory defined as Wyoming even though the team Wyoming is no longer in the game.
My orders don't seem to make strategic sense, but maybe that is just the life of a foot soldier who doesn't have the benefit of the larger strategy.
Wait, I thought when we lost Toledo we gained the UP.
I don't know the mechanics of the game well, but it seems really hard to knock a team out. Once they get down to a very few territories, all their star power gets concentrated. While an attacking team with lots of territories has a lot to defend.
Looks like a front (being roughly defined by the Ohio river and the Mississippi River south of Kentucky) is forming. Would be great to kick out the Red teams out of territories behind that front so our Alliance could push west without worrying about having to defend/attack territories behind the front.
This gets said often, but from a football perspective, why does that make sense? If a player is going into their fourth year is buried on the depth chart and will graduate, they can stick around another year or they can transfer. Either way they don't play in games, but can practice. The advantage of transferring is that they can spend the year learning the new team's system so the following year the can better compete for playing time.
Obviously, if they're that close to graduating it probably makes sense to get the degree.
Obviously the occasional walk on passes a scholarship player. But that is not the same as getting passed by 26 walk-ons.
How do you ever knock someone out of the game? Doesn't fewer territories just mean that that team's collective star power is more concentrated and therefore that team is more likely to win battles to/from their few held territories?
This seems like a pretty unimaginative way to end the game. Would have been better if they started giving a bonus multiplier for the number of territories you hold, with that multiplier exponentially increasing over time (for a given number of territories held).
It could absolutely make sense for him to transfer after next year even if he is not ready to graduate.
Scenario 1, he is second on the depth chart (or worse he is below 2nd) and he doesn't want to play a backup role in his fourth year. So transfers to new school where he'd sit out the first year and could play the second. But he gets to learn the new school's system while he waits. Seems like he'd be better off learning the new system so he be ready to play in his last year. The risk is that he misses some backup role game snaps (would could be meaningful if the starter goes down for any extended period of time). Of course, if he is 3rd string or lower, then that risk is lower (bus not impossible as we saw last year).
Scenario 2, he is not on track to graduate after 4 years. If he stays for his fourth year at Michigan and does not graduate before the 5 season, he can't graduate transfer. So, either he stays at Michigan for year 5 or calls it a college career.
Scenario 3, The rules change to make transfers not have to sit out a year.
Scenario 4, he just wants out for whatever reason.
Scenario 5, I'm not sure exactly how this one works, but if he is willing to pay his own pay (ie not be on scholarship at the new school, does he have to sit out a year?
Just sent a few karma points your way.
Then wipe out Chaos first. Seems like the only way to make progress would be to reduce the numbers against which we are fighting.
Not sure I get the advantage that Neb would gain by turning on someone in their alliance. Being the strongest team in that alliance, it woud seem to be to Nebraska;s favor to keep that alliance going to knock out strong teams in the other alliance. Then, since Nebraska is the strongest, they'd have a leg up when the in-fighting in their alliance begins.
Throwing the other side a bone. I was definitely not told to attack Oregon.
Not sure how to do it, but Chaos needs to be eliminated.
The west push seems like a good approach, but first we most solidify the alliance by eliminating chaos and OSU from behind the front.
Red team has lots of members with territories several (many) turns away from the alliance. The alliance needs to eliminate chaos, set a front, and eliminate the rogue states in our midst. Seems to me that is a lot to ask but if chaos and OSU continue to control territories in the east, it is a matter of time.
Each of the territories Texas controls borders at least one red team territory, so they could theoretically be eliminated in one turn. GT and Clemson are one day away from being in the same spot.
The west push seems like a good approach, but first we most solidify the alliance by eliminating chaos and OSU from behind the front.
Knocking out chaos would be nice.
Looks like you're now over 50 karma, so you should have earned that second star!
Seems like a long way to get 500 karma for that next star, but one good snarky comment can net hundreds of karma.
My strategy was to run around in circles and flip OSU the bird. Do I need to keep that quiet?
How do you find users on Reddit to upvote them?
Hopefully we can take Kent without giving up another surrounding territory to Ohio. That would give us a clear front. Then Clemson and Michigan can march south to try and clear out VT, OSU and chaos and help fortify the Alliance.
Team Chaos and particularly adding players from schools that were knocked out into Team Chaos was a poorly thought out concept. So, when we knock out OSU, they get added into Team Chaos and we have to continue to fend them off.
Pretty easy to see how someone could cross those names.
You and MSU.
I can see the complaint if it was pushing other content off the board too quickly, but even that wouldn't be a problem for a true MGoAddict because they are here all the time anyways and miss nothing.
Just crossed the next threshold for Karma points which should give me, and team Michigan, one more star.
Because it is just too hard to skip over them?
Tried to get instructions, but I got a message about how it didn't recognize me and i should take a turn first. Has worked fine previous day's.
Also, looks like team chaos is heading our way.
It's the SEC way.
Looks like VT and Clemson might have the same idea.
Didn't Boren play out OSU as a walk on? I think the rules can prevent you from transferring to certain places on a scholarship.
PAW PAW PAW
Congrats to Mo on being drafted. Always enjoyed hearing him being interviewed. Him driving the Uber was one of my favorite parts of "All or Nothing".
Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor?
It seems premature to jump to some major conclusion about how we've got a huge problem developing qbs.
Speight, Malzone and Morris weren't superstars under Harbaugh, but he inherited them.
Okorn was brought in as a flier after looking around the qb room.
Who knows, maybe it was a talent issue and JH did a great job getting those guys are far as they got.
D McCaffrey was a skinny true freshman last year.
Imho, Peters was the only real evidence that can be relied upon. Sure he wasn't a superstar last year, but he was only a RS freshman. Further, it is only one fuzzy data point.
Using one off examples like Wyoming and SDSU is ridiculous. More likely they hit the lottery than any thing else. Just because WMU had Corey Davis, it doesn't make them the standard for wr development.
Just a guess. It seems like there are two paths to get a waiver. Path 1 involves both teams requesting NCAA to grant the waiver. Path 2 involves the new team to request the waiver under some type of hardship without agreement of the original team.
Seems like Michigan originally was going down path 2. Ole Miss offered to take path 1 (maybe because the NCAA pushed them there because the NCAA didn't want to make the hard decison and/or set precendent, or maybe because Ole Miss didn't want to be outed). The attorney's statement is thus correct in that this verdict (using path 1) wouldn't have been possible without Old Miss' approval. This does not mean that path 2 would not have been effective even withouth Ole Miss' approval. It only means that path 1 was chosen in some type of settlement agreement.
I'd like to also beat the third State. At home!