All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Sooooo has anyone ever won a game with 4 players?
4/29/2014 12:38 AM
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 12:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 7:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/28/2014 6:35:00 PM (view original):
Your jucos aren't BAD, but IMO they're not GREAT either. Your freshman are both complete projects, that may be starter quality by their JR or SR years. Of course all of this is predicated on potentials. IMO, you're undervaluing Ath in your recruiting.
I don't really want a team with just a bunch of ATH monsters. I think that's pretty boring and really doesn't work well in real life. Nothing's more common than a team of athletic players that underachieve because they aren't very good at basketball.

Well I don't know what you consider great but Crawford will probably be the most talented guard in the conference next year and Godina likely the best SF assuming he gets to play there rather than out of position.
It depends how you measure "most talented", I guess. At D2, I always wanted my PG, SG, and SF to have a total Ath/Spd rating of 140 or so by the time they were juniors. For PGs, something between 50/90 and 70/70; for SGs, something between 60/80 and 80/60; and for SFs, somewhere between 70/70 and 90/50. I didn't get too worried about a few pts one way or the other. Crawford is at least in the neighborhood, at a 129 total. Godina isn't close, at 100, and unless he's blue in both, probably won't get close to 140. IMO, it would've been better for you to land a freshman SG or SF that was something like 40/50, 50/40, and blues in both, than to sign Godina.
It's not like anything was hurt signing Godina. He wasn't that expensive. I like that Godina can score inside and outside and won't really hurt me in any part of the game. If Crawford had some IQ in motion he'd be a tremendous all-around player. Hopefully he can get there in a season and a half. He's blue in LP also, so he should be a good all-around scorer as well.

I would guess your constraints limit what you could get in other attribute areas. 
4/29/2014 12:43 AM
Not really. Because I'm talking about what they'll GROW to be. A freshman who's high-high in both ath/spd could start out as low as 35/40 in one or even both and still be valuable. I don't mind recruiting jucos, but I always want them to be at least really solid athletes if I'm going to do so.
4/29/2014 12:46 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 12:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I did plenty of looking around after signings. I guess it comes down to not really wanting to clog the roster with "role players". Instead of 1 stud FR, I got 2 of the 5 stud players I was after (2 JC, 1 FR that some low D-I came in on literally after signings started, I had been recruiting him the whole time). So really I probably ended up a similar mix from that 80% -- 2 very good JUCOs, and a couple of freshman bigs (one of which is a non-qualifier). So is it worth it to get a couple of other players just to have non walkons off the bench that I might wish I didn't have a couple years from now? I don't think it is, really. We were pretty much sunk for this year when we didn't get the guys like Elliott, Bechtol and the FR guard whose name I can't remember now. Elmont or something.

I think I only did like 6 states FSS in total. All I really needed. 

The route I actually chose would probably have worked just fine if I hadn't been operating under some false assumptions. I probably would have targeted about two fewer players and quit chasing one sooner. One thing that legitimately was a learning point is how much more money is spent per recruit in D2 vs. D3. Seems pretty significantly different, or at least was in my case. Crawford was not cheap despite only having one other school on him.

One thing i thought I would see more of is players making themselves available for drop downs. One did even though he was "considering" another school, but apparently not getting the love and was able to get him (Godina). I put a lot of bread crumbs out but not many emails even came back. That's where I was planning on using my last couple of starting promises.
only did 6 states with 11 openings? that was not all you really needed... i think people are getting into the weeds when really that is the salient point. that, and you battled too much.
I was more trying to tell him what I'd have done differently, so he could have a reference point going forward. Not sure if it's getting through, though.
4/29/2014 12:46 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 12:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I did plenty of looking around after signings. I guess it comes down to not really wanting to clog the roster with "role players". Instead of 1 stud FR, I got 2 of the 5 stud players I was after (2 JC, 1 FR that some low D-I came in on literally after signings started, I had been recruiting him the whole time). So really I probably ended up a similar mix from that 80% -- 2 very good JUCOs, and a couple of freshman bigs (one of which is a non-qualifier). So is it worth it to get a couple of other players just to have non walkons off the bench that I might wish I didn't have a couple years from now? I don't think it is, really. We were pretty much sunk for this year when we didn't get the guys like Elliott, Bechtol and the FR guard whose name I can't remember now. Elmont or something.

I think I only did like 6 states FSS in total. All I really needed. 

The route I actually chose would probably have worked just fine if I hadn't been operating under some false assumptions. I probably would have targeted about two fewer players and quit chasing one sooner. One thing that legitimately was a learning point is how much more money is spent per recruit in D2 vs. D3. Seems pretty significantly different, or at least was in my case. Crawford was not cheap despite only having one other school on him.

One thing i thought I would see more of is players making themselves available for drop downs. One did even though he was "considering" another school, but apparently not getting the love and was able to get him (Godina). I put a lot of bread crumbs out but not many emails even came back. That's where I was planning on using my last couple of starting promises.
only did 6 states with 11 openings? that was not all you really needed... i think people are getting into the weeds when really that is the salient point. that, and you battled too much.
I wasn't trying to get 11 players though. I was trying to get like 7-8, and there was more than enough talent in the states I FSSed to do that. I actually think I probably should have zoned it up even more and not thrown out as many bread crumbs, because I got very few callbacks for dropdowns.

Elliott who went to Wayne State was a guy I was leading on initially. Solomon at UW-Parkside, Elmore at USC-Upstate. Two other guys I targeted but surprisingly someone else got "considered" before I did. Maybe I should have let go on 1 of those sooner. Those were the main guys that got away, all Great Lakes regionals. Recruiting people farther away, using more money on more FSS...would have just made the problem worse. There were a few guys I liked as potential pulldowns, but D-Is came in on them after a few cycles and so there went that. 

Not having enough targets wasn't a problem. There was plenty of talent on offer in the states I chose.
4/29/2014 12:51 AM
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 12:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I did plenty of looking around after signings. I guess it comes down to not really wanting to clog the roster with "role players". Instead of 1 stud FR, I got 2 of the 5 stud players I was after (2 JC, 1 FR that some low D-I came in on literally after signings started, I had been recruiting him the whole time). So really I probably ended up a similar mix from that 80% -- 2 very good JUCOs, and a couple of freshman bigs (one of which is a non-qualifier). So is it worth it to get a couple of other players just to have non walkons off the bench that I might wish I didn't have a couple years from now? I don't think it is, really. We were pretty much sunk for this year when we didn't get the guys like Elliott, Bechtol and the FR guard whose name I can't remember now. Elmont or something.

I think I only did like 6 states FSS in total. All I really needed. 

The route I actually chose would probably have worked just fine if I hadn't been operating under some false assumptions. I probably would have targeted about two fewer players and quit chasing one sooner. One thing that legitimately was a learning point is how much more money is spent per recruit in D2 vs. D3. Seems pretty significantly different, or at least was in my case. Crawford was not cheap despite only having one other school on him.

One thing i thought I would see more of is players making themselves available for drop downs. One did even though he was "considering" another school, but apparently not getting the love and was able to get him (Godina). I put a lot of bread crumbs out but not many emails even came back. That's where I was planning on using my last couple of starting promises.
only did 6 states with 11 openings? that was not all you really needed... i think people are getting into the weeds when really that is the salient point. that, and you battled too much.
I wasn't trying to get 11 players though. I was trying to get like 7-8, and there was more than enough talent in the states I FSSed to do that. I actually think I probably should have zoned it up even more and not thrown out as many bread crumbs, because I got very few callbacks for dropdowns.

Elliott who went to Wayne State was a guy I was leading on initially. Solomon at UW-Parkside, Elmore at USC-Upstate. Two other guys I targeted but surprisingly someone else got "considered" before I did. Maybe I should have let go on 1 of those sooner. Those were the main guys that got away, all Great Lakes regionals. Recruiting people farther away, using more money on more FSS...would have just made the problem worse. There were a few guys I liked as potential pulldowns, but D-Is came in on them after a few cycles and so there went that. 

Not having enough targets wasn't a problem. There was plenty of talent on offer in the states I chose.
You should've let go on all but ONE of those as soon as they became a battle. And multiple people have now given you the same advice as to saving some of your FSS money until after signings, and scouting a bunch of states. You really shouldn't ignore that advice.
4/29/2014 12:51 AM
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 12:43:00 AM (view original):
Not really. Because I'm talking about what they'll GROW to be. A freshman who's high-high in both ath/spd could start out as low as 35/40 in one or even both and still be valuable. I don't mind recruiting jucos, but I always want them to be at least really solid athletes if I'm going to do so.
I want them to be solid basketball players, and I think those two are.

Godina averaged 5 a game in 12 minutes playing in the Big 12, on decent shooting. And I think Crawford's offensive forte is pretty evident.

Like I say, I pursued other people. You may not have liked them better, or maybe you would have. I don't know. I'll obviously have a pretty good seat for what Elliott does. 
4/29/2014 12:59 AM (edited)
of course you didn't want 11! thats not the point. you ended getting up in a lot of battles in your local area - its not about how much talent there is - but how much talent there is that you can get. in lower divisions, scouting around with a big class, you can pick up some quality players almost for nothing - in your case, for 110 dollars, because starts came cheap. if you say there weren't decent guys left late in recruiting, i think you must have had too small an area, or else mistake decent guys for crap, or something, because it doesn't really add up. plenty of good players start in the d2 pool, you don't just have to look up, either. in one way or another (most likely, more than one way), you had too small a pool - either because you eliminated quality guys, or because you looked to hard to d1, or didn't scout enough, or didn't look from beginning to end. its probably most of those things (that would be typical for a new d2 coach who strikes out) but its got to be at least 1-2 of those things, to not have enough players available cheaply, who were at least acceptable to sign as a 5th man. to put it in perspective, long time coaches here could do nothing until the cycle after signings, scout some states, only recruit for 2-3 cycles, and still bring in enough talent to make a decent tournament run (when they grow up). the guys are out there, even in that very restrained viewing window. don't take that as a knock on you... no new coach should be able to walk in and do that! but its well proven the guys are out there, most people just have too narrow a view, and need to widen their scope.
4/29/2014 12:55 AM
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 4/28/2014 11:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 8:43:00 PM (view original):
Well who would you blame for a misinformation issue other the people that provided said information? Regardless, you might want to learn what words mean before you question the use of them.

Maybe pick up a dictionary when you make it back to Earth.
You should blame yourself for not getting the information easily available from the FAQ.

You're a great example of what some people think is wrong with society. You make a mistake and point fingers at everyone else. Take some responsibility without the caveats.

Also like I said in an earlier post in this thread, join some more HD worlds. It will help with your progression on the game. Going through an 0-27 season is going to be torture. Might as well get another team and learn from your mistakes.
Screw that. Why would I pay more when I'm not even sure if I'm staying past this season in the one world I'm in? I don't really like the idea of having a team in a bunch of different worlds. I get the financial benefit to the site but it seems kind of like taking a shortcut to me. And it's not like these things are free.

I don't think this season will be that bad because there's no reason to expect anything. 

I love being pointed to as an example of what's wrong with society. That's definitely not inflammatory or anything! It's pretty ignorant though.
From what I recall, you originally bought two seasons, and *******, whined, complained, and moaned about awful the game was.

Then you purchased another season. You're not leaving the site. I'm not sure what "shortcut" you think you'd be taking by having more than one team. You keep asking for a "shortcut" that spoon feeds you every bit of information about the game.

Generally the people that blame everyone else for their mistakes WHEN THE INFORMATION IS ONE CLICK AWAY aren't good models of society.
4/29/2014 12:56 AM
stine, please.... be reasonable... its at least 3-4 clicks!
4/29/2014 12:56 AM
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 12:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 12:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I did plenty of looking around after signings. I guess it comes down to not really wanting to clog the roster with "role players". Instead of 1 stud FR, I got 2 of the 5 stud players I was after (2 JC, 1 FR that some low D-I came in on literally after signings started, I had been recruiting him the whole time). So really I probably ended up a similar mix from that 80% -- 2 very good JUCOs, and a couple of freshman bigs (one of which is a non-qualifier). So is it worth it to get a couple of other players just to have non walkons off the bench that I might wish I didn't have a couple years from now? I don't think it is, really. We were pretty much sunk for this year when we didn't get the guys like Elliott, Bechtol and the FR guard whose name I can't remember now. Elmont or something.

I think I only did like 6 states FSS in total. All I really needed. 

The route I actually chose would probably have worked just fine if I hadn't been operating under some false assumptions. I probably would have targeted about two fewer players and quit chasing one sooner. One thing that legitimately was a learning point is how much more money is spent per recruit in D2 vs. D3. Seems pretty significantly different, or at least was in my case. Crawford was not cheap despite only having one other school on him.

One thing i thought I would see more of is players making themselves available for drop downs. One did even though he was "considering" another school, but apparently not getting the love and was able to get him (Godina). I put a lot of bread crumbs out but not many emails even came back. That's where I was planning on using my last couple of starting promises.
only did 6 states with 11 openings? that was not all you really needed... i think people are getting into the weeds when really that is the salient point. that, and you battled too much.
I wasn't trying to get 11 players though. I was trying to get like 7-8, and there was more than enough talent in the states I FSSed to do that. I actually think I probably should have zoned it up even more and not thrown out as many bread crumbs, because I got very few callbacks for dropdowns.

Elliott who went to Wayne State was a guy I was leading on initially. Solomon at UW-Parkside, Elmore at USC-Upstate. Two other guys I targeted but surprisingly someone else got "considered" before I did. Maybe I should have let go on 1 of those sooner. Those were the main guys that got away, all Great Lakes regionals. Recruiting people farther away, using more money on more FSS...would have just made the problem worse. There were a few guys I liked as potential pulldowns, but D-Is came in on them after a few cycles and so there went that. 

Not having enough targets wasn't a problem. There was plenty of talent on offer in the states I chose.
You should've let go on all but ONE of those as soon as they became a battle. And multiple people have now given you the same advice as to saving some of your FSS money until after signings, and scouting a bunch of states. You really shouldn't ignore that advice.
So is everyone else letting go on one all but one of their battles too? In that case shouldn't I be able to win more of them by not letting go?

Basically a guessing game at that point. 

I don't think i would have gotten better players than Crawford and Godina after signings, based on what I saw. I could maybe have added another player like Grow who you don't like so not sure why you would advocate that. Would having 6 scholarship players rather than 4 make me a PTT team? That's the only way I can see that being worth it.
4/29/2014 12:56 AM
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 12:43:00 AM (view original):
Not really. Because I'm talking about what they'll GROW to be. A freshman who's high-high in both ath/spd could start out as low as 35/40 in one or even both and still be valuable. I don't mind recruiting jucos, but I always want them to be at least really solid athletes if I'm going to do so.
I want them to be solid basketball players, and I think those two are.

Godina averaged 5 a game in 12 minutes playing in the Big 12, on decent shooting. And I think Crawford's offensive forte is pretty evident.

Like I say, I pursued other people. You may not have liked them better, or maybe you would have. I don't know. I'll obviously have a pretty good seat for what Elliott does. 
Like I said before, you're undervaluing athleticism, IMO. But I now feel like I'm beating my head against the wall, so I'll take my leave.
4/29/2014 1:00 AM
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:56:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 12:51:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 12:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 12:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/28/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I did plenty of looking around after signings. I guess it comes down to not really wanting to clog the roster with "role players". Instead of 1 stud FR, I got 2 of the 5 stud players I was after (2 JC, 1 FR that some low D-I came in on literally after signings started, I had been recruiting him the whole time). So really I probably ended up a similar mix from that 80% -- 2 very good JUCOs, and a couple of freshman bigs (one of which is a non-qualifier). So is it worth it to get a couple of other players just to have non walkons off the bench that I might wish I didn't have a couple years from now? I don't think it is, really. We were pretty much sunk for this year when we didn't get the guys like Elliott, Bechtol and the FR guard whose name I can't remember now. Elmont or something.

I think I only did like 6 states FSS in total. All I really needed. 

The route I actually chose would probably have worked just fine if I hadn't been operating under some false assumptions. I probably would have targeted about two fewer players and quit chasing one sooner. One thing that legitimately was a learning point is how much more money is spent per recruit in D2 vs. D3. Seems pretty significantly different, or at least was in my case. Crawford was not cheap despite only having one other school on him.

One thing i thought I would see more of is players making themselves available for drop downs. One did even though he was "considering" another school, but apparently not getting the love and was able to get him (Godina). I put a lot of bread crumbs out but not many emails even came back. That's where I was planning on using my last couple of starting promises.
only did 6 states with 11 openings? that was not all you really needed... i think people are getting into the weeds when really that is the salient point. that, and you battled too much.
I wasn't trying to get 11 players though. I was trying to get like 7-8, and there was more than enough talent in the states I FSSed to do that. I actually think I probably should have zoned it up even more and not thrown out as many bread crumbs, because I got very few callbacks for dropdowns.

Elliott who went to Wayne State was a guy I was leading on initially. Solomon at UW-Parkside, Elmore at USC-Upstate. Two other guys I targeted but surprisingly someone else got "considered" before I did. Maybe I should have let go on 1 of those sooner. Those were the main guys that got away, all Great Lakes regionals. Recruiting people farther away, using more money on more FSS...would have just made the problem worse. There were a few guys I liked as potential pulldowns, but D-Is came in on them after a few cycles and so there went that. 

Not having enough targets wasn't a problem. There was plenty of talent on offer in the states I chose.
You should've let go on all but ONE of those as soon as they became a battle. And multiple people have now given you the same advice as to saving some of your FSS money until after signings, and scouting a bunch of states. You really shouldn't ignore that advice.
So is everyone else letting go on one all but one of their battles too? In that case shouldn't I be able to win more of them by not letting go?

Basically a guessing game at that point. 

I don't think i would have gotten better players than Crawford and Godina after signings, based on what I saw. I could maybe have added another player like Grow who you don't like so not sure why you would advocate that. Would having 6 scholarship players rather than 4 make me a PTT team? That's the only way I can see that being worth it.
You can land decent potential freshman after signings that would not help you be "a PIT team", but would help you in the long run. But do what you want, man. I'm tired of the merry-go-round.
4/29/2014 1:00 AM
and for what its worth, i spend half the time i spend talking to coaches about low-mid d1, telling coaches to widen the scope of players they are considering... so its not just you i give this advice...
4/29/2014 1:04 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 12:59:00 AM (view original):
of course you didn't want 11! thats not the point. you ended getting up in a lot of battles in your local area - its not about how much talent there is - but how much talent there is that you can get. in lower divisions, scouting around with a big class, you can pick up some quality players almost for nothing - in your case, for 110 dollars, because starts came cheap. if you say there weren't decent guys left late in recruiting, i think you must have had too small an area, or else mistake decent guys for crap, or something, because it doesn't really add up. plenty of good players start in the d2 pool, you don't just have to look up, either. in one way or another (most likely, more than one way), you had too small a pool - either because you eliminated quality guys, or because you looked to hard to d1, or didn't scout enough, or didn't look from beginning to end. its probably most of those things (that would be typical for a new d2 coach who strikes out) but its got to be at least 1-2 of those things, to not have enough players available cheaply, who were at least acceptable to sign as a 5th man. to put it in perspective, long time coaches here could do nothing until the cycle after signings, scout some states, only recruit for 2-3 cycles, and still bring in enough talent to make a decent tournament run (when they grow up). the guys are out there, even in that very restrained viewing window. don't take that as a knock on you... no new coach should be able to walk in and do that! but its well proven the guys are out there, most people just have too narrow a view, and need to widen their scope.
Now we're going in circles. Just because it doesn't add up to you doesn't mean it's wrong. I looked at the list quite a bit late and there wasn't much interesting on it. Probably would have ended up with another guy like Grow or Joyce. Nothing special. 

Yeah I'm sure if you did nothing until signings and had a kajillion dollars to spend recruiting against no one you could probably get some pretty decent players. Doesn't seem like picking up scraps is the way to get high caliber talent though.
4/29/2014 1:05 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:00:00 AM (view original):
and for what its worth, i spend half the time i spend talking to coaches about low-mid d1, telling coaches to widen the scope of players they are considering... so its not just you i give this advice...
Seems like recruiting there would be easier, not having to deal with all this pulldown horsecrap. 
of 19
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Sooooo has anyone ever won a game with 4 players?

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.