I'll put it as simply as possible.

Seeing a lot of(especially at dII and dIII) teams that take about 4-7% of their total shots from 3 make the final 4.  That's completely unrealistic.  Essentially the engine ends up giving these teams a ton of FTA's.  If a team is playing -4 or -5 against you, you're NOT going to get that many FTA's in real life.  You're going to be forced to shoot more 3's and have a VERY low 2pt FG% against anyone with a decent defense.

Instead, these teams are shooting like 1 3 pointer a game and making the Final Four. That's certainly something to be adjusted within the engine.

For Example:

Duke, Wisconsin, and Michigan State all took about 33% of their shots for 3 this season.  Kentucky(even with their size) took about 25%).

To see #'s like 4-7% being successful is just a joke.  Teams play -3, -4 against them, and still can't stop them.  

Agreed.  I have always thought one of the most unrealistic points of this game is the fact that if you extend your defense (+) you commit less fouls and if you pack it in the key (-) you commit more fouls.  This is the complete opposite of real basketball. 

Posted by wpd73 on 7/30/2015 5:56:00 PM (view original):
Agreed.  I have always thought one of the most unrealistic points of this game is the fact that if you extend your defense (+) you commit less fouls and if you pack it in the key (-) you commit more fouls.  This is the complete opposite of real basketball. 

I'm not 100 percent sure that's how the game engine actually treats things though. 

To me it seems the further away from 0 a team strays, the more fouls beyond its baseline a team picks up. The tendency is definitely more pronounced in the negative numbers than it is in the positives, but I think a +3, +4, +5 consistently will yield more fouls by a team than a positioning of 0 does, all else being equal and effects of intentional foul situations removed from the equation. 

Posted by rednu on 7/30/2015 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wpd73 on 7/30/2015 5:56:00 PM (view original):
Agreed.  I have always thought one of the most unrealistic points of this game is the fact that if you extend your defense (+) you commit less fouls and if you pack it in the key (-) you commit more fouls.  This is the complete opposite of real basketball. 

I'm not 100 percent sure that's how the game engine actually treats things though. 

To me it seems the further away from 0 a team strays, the more fouls beyond its baseline a team picks up. The tendency is definitely more pronounced in the negative numbers than it is in the positives, but I think a +3, +4, +5 consistently will yield more fouls by a team than a positioning of 0 does, all else being equal and effects of intentional foul situations removed from the equation. 

From the Player's Help Guide - http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/help/guide.aspx:

For instance, playing a negative defense aids rebounding, but makes a team more likely to commit fouls. A positive defense has just the opposite effect, with less fouls but also less rebounding help. These factors, however, are generally considered secondary to the prime issue of where your opponent is shooting the ball.

Posted by possumfiend on 7/30/2015 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 7/30/2015 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wpd73 on 7/30/2015 5:56:00 PM (view original):
Agreed.  I have always thought one of the most unrealistic points of this game is the fact that if you extend your defense (+) you commit less fouls and if you pack it in the key (-) you commit more fouls.  This is the complete opposite of real basketball. 

I'm not 100 percent sure that's how the game engine actually treats things though. 

To me it seems the further away from 0 a team strays, the more fouls beyond its baseline a team picks up. The tendency is definitely more pronounced in the negative numbers than it is in the positives, but I think a +3, +4, +5 consistently will yield more fouls by a team than a positioning of 0 does, all else being equal and effects of intentional foul situations removed from the equation. 

From the Player's Help Guide - http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/help/guide.aspx:

For instance, playing a negative defense aids rebounding, but makes a team more likely to commit fouls. A positive defense has just the opposite effect, with less fouls but also less rebounding help. These factors, however, are generally considered secondary to the prime issue of where your opponent is shooting the ball.

I know that's what the Player's Guide says -- I'm saying I don't think that's what the engine actually does if you look at game outputs.

Track your fouls committed and make note of your defensive positioning. Disregard any offensive fouls and fouls that are the result of late-game intentional fouling situations and make sure to take into account any second half or late-game defensive positioning shifts. If you run multiple defenses, that needs to be taken into account as well. My experience from having done that 2-3 years ago when I was carrying 4-5 teams is that you wind up with a parabola of sorts with the low point at a defensive setting of 0 and an increase in fouls as you move away from that point in either direction -- the effect is more pronounced toward the negative end of the spectrum (i.e.- a -2 results in a larger deviation than a +2 does), but it is definitely present as you step up in positive numbers from 0 as well. It definitely ends up looking more U shaped than a slanted linear downward progression from -5 to +5. 

I think you have it exactly right.  In the engine, players with high athleticism seem to draw fouls.  The engine also (my opinion, but this point is contentious) unrealistically portrays and rewards press.  Press defenses require players with high athleticism.  At D2 and D3, all of the most successful teams play press (again contentious...), which means they recruit high athleticism.  It's usually a losing proposition to play -2/3/4/5 against a press team with high athleticism, i.e. one of the many outstanding press teams in the league, because the large number of fouls is worse than the effect on shooting.  Which leads to your observation.