9/17/2012 7:29 PM
my guess is everyone else is making a lot bigger deal out of his real identity than it was to him in the first place...
9/17/2012 8:03 PM
I'm leaning towards serial killer.... but billy's post above sounds about right as well. Gl robotdevil, be cool to see your results
9/17/2012 10:58 PM
Posted by caesari on 9/16/2012 11:14:00 PM (view original):
I am now hosting a $5 pool on who this guy is. Winner gets 70%, robot gets the rest (just to encourage him to accept).

Hell, robot, you can even guess. Could rake in the cash.
This.
9/17/2012 11:29 PM
Posted by coach_billyg on 9/17/2012 7:29:00 PM (view original):
my guess is everyone else is making a lot bigger deal out of his real identity than it was to him in the first place...
well, yeah, but he has the advantage of already knowing that tidbit lol
9/18/2012 2:56 AM (edited)
The first recruiting class is complete. Not great, but a solid first class. If I were practicing team off/def I would consider this first group Sweet 16 caliber players. Next season the team will again have 6 open scholarships and the focus will be on finding players that can push them into the Final Four in the 3rd and 4th season.

Prediction for Season 1
4-23   (eliminated 1rd conference tournament)  ~300 RPI

It will not be fun. 3 seniors, 6 freshman, and 3 walk-ons. Enough said. However, it will be a good opportunity to see the effect of playing time and starts on IQ.

*I will post the player IQs here when recruiting is over and they are added to the team page.

9/18/2012 3:09 AM (edited)
who are the stars of the class? whats their summary? not seeing potential, your class appears to range from absolutely horrible to pretty darn good :) would be interesting to know who you expect the stars to be, particularly on offense.

my theory about your experiment is this - offensively, your team will be able to compete. i think your defense will take a bigger hit. rebounding should be somewhere in the middle. i think really the 2 worst stats you will have are steals and opponent fg%, and then maybe fouls committed. but i think your fg% will actually be decent, if you have some good ratings. i mean, not this year, everything will suck this year (although i wouldnt be surprised if you won more like 6 games). but that is how im roughly guessing this will go as things progress.

anyone else care to hazard a guess about the impact of iq? i guess i'd have to think more to really try to pin it down numbers-wise, but thats very difficult with all the variables (SOS, quality of team, etc). but if anyone else has a qualitative summary of what they think might happen (what takes bigger hits, what takes smaller hits), id be interested to hear it!

edit: or maybe could you screen shot your players from like, the comparison tool or anything that shows potential, and give us a tiny url or something? not super important but i think it would help people get into it :)

9/18/2012 1:04 PM (edited)
These are the player projections. Keep in mind the only one I was able to scout (beyond FSS) was Davis due to budget contraints this time. So he is the only one with high/highs included. I am projecting 0pts for low, 10 for avg, 20 for high, and 30 for high/high. I believe very reasonable projections and would not be surprised to see them end much higher in some areas.

Name Yr. Pos. A SPD REB DE BLK LP PE BH P WE ST DU TOT
James Blair Fr. SG 53     74 15 69 10 40 42 55 50 25 71 51 555
Chris Davis Fr. C 61     27 74 57 46 47 40 33 31 22 78 76 566
Jonathan Delarosa Fr. SG 61    53 41 57   7 41 38 51 33 57 82 43 560
Robert Knight Fr. PG 66    58   1 45 12 33 51 67 61 56 87 42 565
Dominick Powe Fr. C 60    31 52 75 35 38 35 40 42 54 72 68 602
Adam Price Fr. SF 49    53 42 44 40 62 40 28 43 30 84 43 550
Averages - - 58    49 38 58 30 44 41 46 43 41 79 54 566

Next recruiting season I will need to get a couple more bigs with great rebounding talent, more defense, and an elite perimeter shooter with speed.

Lineup would look something like this:

PG - Knight
SG - Blair
SF - Delarosa       (backup)Price
PF - Powe
C   - Davis


This is how the recruits currently look.

Name Yr. Pos. A SPD REB DE BLK LP PE BH P WE ST DU TOT
James Blair     Fr. SG 33 64 15 49 10 20 22 35 50 25 61 41 425
Chris Davis Fr. C 41 27 44 27 26 47 10 23 11 54 58 48 416
Jonathan Delarosa Fr. SG 61 43 21 47   7 21 28 31 23 22 72 56 432
Robert Knight Fr. PG 56 48   1 35 12 13 31 47 41 57 77 23 441
Dominick Powe Fr. C 50 31 32 55 15 18 15 30 42 56 62 32 438
Adam Price Fr. SF 29 43 32 24 30 62 20 28 23 30 74 43 438
Averages - - 45 42 24 39 16 30 21 32 31 40 67 40 431



9/18/2012 6:30 AM
so obvious this is fredpaull
9/18/2012 11:40 AM
I will not be addressing posts that aren't related to the study. If anyone feels the need to guess my identity please start a new thread. Let's keep this one on topic.
9/18/2012 1:06 PM
Posted by jdno on 9/18/2012 6:30:00 AM (view original):
so obvious this is fredpaull
you heard the part where he plans to keep the school for like 10 seasons? fredpaull wouldnt last three :) 

(sorry OP the rest of my post is on topic :)

im pretty out of touch with d3, and really, am struggling to estimate the quality of that class. doesn't look great, but the OP already said that. is that the kind of upperclassmen that could lead to a sweet 16? i mean, ath/def is their strength, which is a good start, but i really don't know if thats a good figure. team overall, id think so, but not necessarily for the older half of your team, team overall should be significantly lower. any regular d3 coaches care to fill me in? preferably on their real id? :)

9/19/2012 11:35 PM (edited)
Remember now these projections will be reached much quicker than a "normal" team. So even the players recruited next season should be maxed out as well much earlier than normal. Like I said not the best class, but solid. I tried to avoid battles this time around to get a decent core going. That won't happen next season when I will be happy filling 4 out of 6 scholarships.

So that we can establish a baseline. What is the consensus on this group(talent wise)? Surely we can agree this will be a NT quality team. Maybe 2nd Rd? Or do you agree Sweet 16 is the correct assumption.

It will probably be much easier to answer that question after the next class.

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
9/18/2012 3:46 PM
Posted by taniajane on 9/18/2012 3:08:00 PM (view original):
Curious what would you do with the minutes when all topped out?
I vote leave them all in conditioning.
9/18/2012 3:49 PM
16? Ath/spd/def would want to be, I would think, in the 50+ range for a minimum ... Which the class meets. Reb seems on the low side ... I would say that, indeed, a rebounder and a per shooter would give you the biggest bang for your buck.
9/18/2012 3:50 PM
Posted by gillispie on 9/18/2012 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jdno on 9/18/2012 6:30:00 AM (view original):
so obvious this is fredpaull
you heard the part where he plans to keep the school for like 10 seasons? fredpaull wouldnt last three :) 

(sorry OP the rest of my post is on topic :)

im pretty out of touch with d3, and really, am struggling to estimate the quality of that class. doesn't look great, but the OP already said that. is that the kind of upperclassmen that could lead to a sweet 16? i mean, ath/def is their strength, which is a good start, but i really don't know if thats a good figure. team overall, id think so, but not necessarily for the older half of your team, team overall should be significantly lower. any regular d3 coaches care to fill me in? preferably on their real id? :)

Id say as senoirs the only way they make the nt is if they schedule correctly they dont look good to me.
of 11

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.