Posted by stevejones16 on 9/16/2012 4:51:00 PM (view original):
I think switching the offenses and defenses is a mistake, for two reasons:

1. My guess is that, if you stick with one o/d combo, your players will progress at least a little bit in IQ. This will give us some insight into "baseline" IQ growth due to starts / PT. This is useful info in and of itself. If you switch around, you'll pollute the data.

2. Switching o/d will give you an advantage, because it will make game-planning against you very difficult. Obviously, this will increase the chances that you will be competitive, but it kind of takes this from being a scientific study (where we're testing just one variable) and makes it something else (because you'll be testing multiple).

Valid points. Originally, I was thinking that switching OFF/DEF based on opponent might be interesting in this study. Does the community want to know more about the value of IQ due to starts/PT or how changing OFF/DEF with regards to opponent can effect game planning/results? I'm open to your opinions and willing to go with one OFF/DEF the whole time. What is the consensus?

Posted by bvb24 on 9/16/2012 4:44:00 PM (view original):
I'll be watching. What world are you testing in?

This is in Knight D3.

Very Interesting - I will be watching.

All debates about study design aside, this is very interesting, valuable, and much appreciated.  

sounds interesting to me, too. as far as the multiple off/def question goes, i would suggest you pick an offense/defense at the start of the season (doesnt necessarily have to be before game 1, just pretty early on), and then stick with it. i think the question about the value of iq is an important one, and could make for a very interesting study. and i do agree that changing off/def from game to game could help offset the negative of no of iq, and there is value in keeping things constant. that said, i dont really see a problem with you starting with zone for the reasons you mentioned, then switching to man in season 3, or anything like that.

i think it would also be interesting to do this switching off/def around, but i think it makes it less clear what the impact of iq was alone. maybe after you've looked at iq for a while, you could play with the off/def stuff, or something like that?

my personal belief is that iq is pretty important. i wouldnt be surprised if a coach was able to get a team into the post season consistently, but id really be surprised if that team was able to consistently get wins in the NT, even if its just 1 NT win per season.

Posted by kmasonbx on 9/16/2012 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Agree with Emy, simply being a veteran coach doesn't mean you're a successful veteran coach. 

i agree, too. maybe you could give us just a rough idea? i mean, there are SO many coaches here, if you said something like:
well at my favorite program, which is in d2, i feel the last 10 seasons are pretty indicative of how my teams will do if i am focused on them. there, my last 10 resume is roughly 8 NT appearances and 14 NT wins, with 2 final fours.

if you said that, im pretty sure we would have no idea who you were. or you could list out the result of the last 10 seasons, in random order, and maybe with a few tweaks here and there (tweak a couple seasons up, a couple down, if you are really concerned it could lead to someone guessing who you are). or you could just tell us what would be a "good run" for you in d3, it doesnt even have to be linked to anything that actually happened (i mean, id give values in range with what you'd expect, but not necessarily the actual run you had at any point in time)

i think its important to have a baseline, like emy was alluding to. if "a good run" for you means consistently making the NT and a few sweet 16s here or there, then the standard for "success" with this low iq team is lower. if "a good run" for you means winning a championship or two, then the standard for success with this low iq team is higher. the only way to gauge the value of iq here is if we have some idea what you'd accomplish without the iq restriction.

Reads like seble.  Not sayin' it's him, just that it reads like him.  That'd be cool, and smart.

I think Robot Devil is my favorite Futurama character.

Jeesh, I sound like a suckup.

Posted by gillispie1 on 9/16/2012 6:19:00 PM (view original):
sounds interesting to me, too. as far as the multiple off/def question goes, i would suggest you pick an offense/defense at the start of the season (doesnt necessarily have to be before game 1, just pretty early on), and then stick with it. i think the question about the value of iq is an important one, and could make for a very interesting study. and i do agree that changing off/def from game to game could help offset the negative of no of iq, and there is value in keeping things constant. that said, i dont really see a problem with you starting with zone for the reasons you mentioned, then switching to man in season 3, or anything like that.

i think it would also be interesting to do this switching off/def around, but i think it makes it less clear what the impact of iq was alone. maybe after you've looked at iq for a while, you could play with the off/def stuff, or something like that?

my personal belief is that iq is pretty important. i wouldnt be surprised if a coach was able to get a team into the post season consistently, but id really be surprised if that team was able to consistently get wins in the NT, even if its just 1 NT win per season.

This sounds like a pretty good idea.

*The first 4 seasons will be dedicated to one offense/defense. Depending on the results of that study maybe then we can transition into testing a switching offense/defense strategy.

"my personal belief is that iq is pretty important. i wouldnt be surprised if a coach was able to get a team into the post season consistently, but id really be surprised if that team was able to consistently get wins in the NT, even if its just 1 NT win per season."

This is what I believe as well and why I am interested in the study.

Posted by gillispie1 on 9/16/2012 6:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 9/16/2012 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Agree with Emy, simply being a veteran coach doesn't mean you're a successful veteran coach. 

i agree, too. maybe you could give us just a rough idea? i mean, there are SO many coaches here, if you said something like:
well at my favorite program, which is in d2, i feel the last 10 seasons are pretty indicative of how my teams will do if i am focused on them. there, my last 10 resume is roughly 8 NT appearances and 14 NT wins, with 2 final fours.

if you said that, im pretty sure we would have no idea who you were. or you could list out the result of the last 10 seasons, in random order, and maybe with a few tweaks here and there (tweak a couple seasons up, a couple down, if you are really concerned it could lead to someone guessing who you are). or you could just tell us what would be a "good run" for you in d3, it doesnt even have to be linked to anything that actually happened (i mean, id give values in range with what you'd expect, but not necessarily the actual run you had at any point in time)

i think its important to have a baseline, like emy was alluding to. if "a good run" for you means consistently making the NT and a few sweet 16s here or there, then the standard for "success" with this low iq team is lower. if "a good run" for you means winning a championship or two, then the standard for success with this low iq team is higher. the only way to gauge the value of iq here is if we have some idea what you'd accomplish without the iq restriction.

I have played at all levels and have multiple national titles. I am a consistent Final Four coach who rarely misses the tournament, however I only want this to be about the study itself. I am not on the (OR, lostmyth, BillyG) level, but I consider myself very capable.

see, to throw people off my trail, i am having a conversation with myself, through my multiple aliases... :)

thats cool, thanks for sharing! and i know what you are saying but really, now knowing you are a regular final 4 coach, that gives us critical perspective. if you barely manage to make the NT now, that means the loss of iq was a pretty big hit. if you had bee a guy who almost never made the final 4, regularly making the NT but not much more, then barely managing to make the NT would mean much less of a loss. so i think the relative context is pretty important.

whats your plan to track this? post the starting and ending ratings of the team each season, with the outcomes, or something like that? id personally find it quite interesting for you to post your own guesses about the season - both going into the season and into the post season - where would you expect this team to perform, with their poor iq, and what would you be expecting if they had normal iq? i mean obviously, with iq, they'd have lower ratings, because you get extra practice time. but still, that would provide a pretty meaningful comparison.

now that i mention it, how will you be using that extra 40 or so minutes of practice time? do you plan to use it on ratings, which would inflate your ratings at least for younger players, somewhat compensating for the lack of iq? or will you be throwing it into study hall so you will have no better ratings than you would have had in the normal case?

That sounds fun. Once recruiting is complete I will give a prediction for the season and paste the starting IQs and any other important information in here.

Oh and i will be putting minutes into anything that will help the players improve as quickly as possible. The only minutes going into study hall will be just enough to pass. This will probably result in a ton of wasted minutes by the players junior season. At least then they can get a lot of studying in!

Come to think of it I will paste the player ratings as well and we might be able to analyze diminished returns, because some of the players will probably be getting as much as 30 minutes in some categories with none going into team practice.

Posted by robotdevil on 9/16/2012 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 9/16/2012 6:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 9/16/2012 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Agree with Emy, simply being a veteran coach doesn't mean you're a successful veteran coach. 

i agree, too. maybe you could give us just a rough idea? i mean, there are SO many coaches here, if you said something like:
well at my favorite program, which is in d2, i feel the last 10 seasons are pretty indicative of how my teams will do if i am focused on them. there, my last 10 resume is roughly 8 NT appearances and 14 NT wins, with 2 final fours.

if you said that, im pretty sure we would have no idea who you were. or you could list out the result of the last 10 seasons, in random order, and maybe with a few tweaks here and there (tweak a couple seasons up, a couple down, if you are really concerned it could lead to someone guessing who you are). or you could just tell us what would be a "good run" for you in d3, it doesnt even have to be linked to anything that actually happened (i mean, id give values in range with what you'd expect, but not necessarily the actual run you had at any point in time)

i think its important to have a baseline, like emy was alluding to. if "a good run" for you means consistently making the NT and a few sweet 16s here or there, then the standard for "success" with this low iq team is lower. if "a good run" for you means winning a championship or two, then the standard for success with this low iq team is higher. the only way to gauge the value of iq here is if we have some idea what you'd accomplish without the iq restriction.

I have played at all levels and have multiple national titles. I am a consistent Final Four coach who rarely misses the tournament, however I only want this to be about the study itself. I am not on the (OR, lostmyth, BillyG) level, but I consider myself very capable.

Assuming of course that this is true (and we have no reason at this point to think that it's not), I think that resume is certainly sufficient to be considered a successful veteran coach whether we know the specific ID or not.  I actually think that this experiment was done many, many seasons ago (possibly even pre-potential), but the coach was not as open about it as you are.  Don't seem to remember him ever publishing the results either.  Regardless, looks like it should be interesting.  Best of luck to you and I hope you don't end up getting too discouraged!

How often do you anticipate updating the thread with your results?  Every season?  Half a season?  Every game?  Just wondering.

I like it alot.  With the extra minutes going towards ratiings improvement. you will be able to get a great idea if rapid player skills improvement can overcome IQ improvement.. I'd rather see you run a man to man. I think it would be more relevant than a zone to aggressive coaches.