All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Sooooo has anyone ever won a game with 4 players?
4/29/2014 1:39 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:07:00 AM (view original):
Arguably the best coach in HD is giving you advice, Ettaexpress. If he says it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up.

And your last paragraph completely mischaracterizes what people have said to you. I, for one, have consistently said you should've found one stud to fight for pre-signings. Then after signings, fill in around him with decent players and/or jucos.
I don't want "decent players" to be filling scholarships. If I could have gotten good players I would have taken them, and I tried. But I really don't see when people are criticizing the FR I did get why the plan would be to try to sign more players you all won't like, and more important, I won't like.

If Grow had been able to qualify (and IIRC he was close) then I'm in better shape and then 4 more similar recruits next year and it seems like we should be in business. I don't think I'm going to beat Hillsdale getting "decent players".
Then you're not going to win. Every team is a mix of decent players, 1 or 2 superstars, and a couple really solid guys. And you are NEVER going to get there in one recruiting cycle. Rebuilding a team as bad as yours is going to take 2-3 cycles to be over .500, and 4-5 to be competing with the top teams. And that's IF you take the advice of the people trying to help you.
You mean like you and Villanova? Doesn't seem your way works all that great either. IRL you'd probably be fired from there this year if you don't make the NT.
making the NT with a bottom feeder BCS team is the hardest situation to make the NT with in the whole game, its incomparably harder than doing so at d2/d3. championship coaches try and fail all the time. wildcat is doing just fine.
Thanks for this, Gillispie. This Nova build has been the most frustrating thing I've yet undertaken in HD.
4/29/2014 1:43 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:30:00 AM (view original):
etta, d1 recruiting is vastly more difficult. guys who romp d2/d3 - i mean who rattle off 2, 3, 4, 5 championships in no time flat - come to d1 and fall on their faces, because of the recruiting. plus, d1 has loads of coaches who could easily maintain A prestige type programs in lower divisions. its way harder, there is really no question among those who have succeeded at both (i put in that qualifier because a lot of people who never played d1 disagree...)

i personally think the top of d2/d3 are actually pretty tough, and get a bad wrap, the gap between them and top of d1 isn't as big as people make it out to be, IMO. but for say, a normal a to low a+ d2/d3 team, competing on that level (making the NT every year with an average of a NT win or two) isn't even close to as hard as d1. its so different that HDers talk about "best coaches" and "best d2/d3 coaches" because its almost impossible to compare coaches who made it in d1 with those who have not. 

that said, i am curious, what is the potential of the guys you signed? i have no idea, i haven't even looked. i know you said you only have 4 players, which means you really should have been signing guys who are decent to fill spots, not holding out for greats... so just to make it clear, the quality of those guys doesn't really weigh in on the discussion of if there were other guys worth signing who you missed. on 30k, spending 10k on scouting is not unreasonable at all, to find more options, and even if you battled locally, you definitely should be able to win more freshman. but outside that, im kind of curious about the guys you got. i just checked them out, they actually look like they *could* be good, depending on their potential. and that juco sg can contribute right now, even if his potential sucks, the other guys, they need growth (like all freshman d2 recruits and most jucos), so i am reserving judgement.

edit: fyi, d1 also has pulldowns


I went through them before but I will again.

Crawford is black SP, DE, FT and blue LP and BH. So ballpark 75 SP, 65 DE, 45+ LP, 76+ BH. And you have to figure with his WE he'll get there.
Godina is black A, DE, BLK and BH. blue ST. Est max 60 A, 50 DE, 62 BH, 97 ST or something.
Grow is blue A, P, ST and black RB, DE, BLK, LP, FT. So 45+ A, 95 RB, 35 D, 85 BLK, 100 LP, 33+ P, 86+ ST. Btw, does he improve at all during his sitout year? Just wondering.
Joyce is black A, blue RB, DE, LP, BH, ST. So 45 A, 85+ RB, 53+ DE, 81+ LP, 31+ BH (with a 1 P, not sure how much this matters), 74+ ST.

4/29/2014 1:49 AM
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:04:00 AM (view original):
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.
"just because it doesn't add up to you doesn't mean it's wrong" - actually, it does... not to be an arrogant *****, but really, it does, there is no question on that front.

that said, low d2 is tough because the players available to you are SIGNIFICANTLY more limited than they are to high d2 schools, its really remarkable if you haven't coached there in a while and you go coach there, how much less you have access too. but that doesn't mean the guys top d3 schools sign aren't available (and then some), and those are more than sufficient to make the NT. you shouldn't be shooting for a title when you have never made the NT, and have C prestige... shooting for the NT is sufficient. there were guys like that available, its just not clear why you missed them. thats why im curious about the guys you signed, what your take on them is, because that will give clues as to whether its the way you evaluate players, or recruiting mechanics. the recruiting strategy error of getting in so many battles speaks for itself, but that can't be the whole story. 

low d2 really is not that easy... thats why all of us would have suggested you stay at d3 a bit longer (and not grab a C prestige job with 11 openings, which is incredibly difficult for a new coach). but if you are going to full on jump in, you may as well try to learn as much on as many fronts as fast as you can. its not a place conducive to slow learning like d3 is, where the structure is much more flat. you definitely made it harder for yourself - which is fine - its just good to be aware of the situation you put yourself in, i think. at least, i'd want to be aware :)
4/29/2014 1:49 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:07:00 AM (view original):
Arguably the best coach in HD is giving you advice, Ettaexpress. If he says it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up.

And your last paragraph completely mischaracterizes what people have said to you. I, for one, have consistently said you should've found one stud to fight for pre-signings. Then after signings, fill in around him with decent players and/or jucos.
I don't want "decent players" to be filling scholarships. If I could have gotten good players I would have taken them, and I tried. But I really don't see when people are criticizing the FR I did get why the plan would be to try to sign more players you all won't like, and more important, I won't like.

If Grow had been able to qualify (and IIRC he was close) then I'm in better shape and then 4 more similar recruits next year and it seems like we should be in business. I don't think I'm going to beat Hillsdale getting "decent players".
Then you're not going to win. Every team is a mix of decent players, 1 or 2 superstars, and a couple really solid guys. And you are NEVER going to get there in one recruiting cycle. Rebuilding a team as bad as yours is going to take 2-3 cycles to be over .500, and 4-5 to be competing with the top teams. And that's IF you take the advice of the people trying to help you.
You mean like you and Villanova? Doesn't seem your way works all that great either. IRL you'd probably be fired from there this year if you don't make the NT.
making the NT with a bottom feeder BCS team is the hardest situation to make the NT with in the whole game, its incomparably harder than doing so at d2/d3. championship coaches try and fail all the time. wildcat is doing just fine.
Might be true, but fans aren't always the most understanding, especially when they've had success in the past. 4 years, never being above .500 in the league, collapsing at the end of the season in the 4th year, without a good conference tournament and postseason success, I could definitely see the fans forcing out such a coach.
4/29/2014 1:49 AM
good grief, ***** is a swear now? what is this world coming to...
4/29/2014 1:50 AM
Again, you're 25-30 at D3, and insulting MY record, during an extremely tough BCS conference rebuild. That's some hubris right there.
4/29/2014 1:57 AM (edited)
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:07:00 AM (view original):
Arguably the best coach in HD is giving you advice, Ettaexpress. If he says it doesn't add up, it doesn't add up.

And your last paragraph completely mischaracterizes what people have said to you. I, for one, have consistently said you should've found one stud to fight for pre-signings. Then after signings, fill in around him with decent players and/or jucos.
I don't want "decent players" to be filling scholarships. If I could have gotten good players I would have taken them, and I tried. But I really don't see when people are criticizing the FR I did get why the plan would be to try to sign more players you all won't like, and more important, I won't like.

If Grow had been able to qualify (and IIRC he was close) then I'm in better shape and then 4 more similar recruits next year and it seems like we should be in business. I don't think I'm going to beat Hillsdale getting "decent players".
Then you're not going to win. Every team is a mix of decent players, 1 or 2 superstars, and a couple really solid guys. And you are NEVER going to get there in one recruiting cycle. Rebuilding a team as bad as yours is going to take 2-3 cycles to be over .500, and 4-5 to be competing with the top teams. And that's IF you take the advice of the people trying to help you.
You mean like you and Villanova? Doesn't seem your way works all that great either. IRL you'd probably be fired from there this year if you don't make the NT.
making the NT with a bottom feeder BCS team is the hardest situation to make the NT with in the whole game, its incomparably harder than doing so at d2/d3. championship coaches try and fail all the time. wildcat is doing just fine.
Might be true, but fans aren't always the most understanding, especially when they've had success in the past. 4 years, never being above .500 in the league, collapsing at the end of the season in the 4th year, without a good conference tournament and postseason success, I could definitely see the fans forcing out such a coach.
absolutely correct. in this game, you can pick up kentucky or north carolina and not get fired after 6 seasons of straight missing the post season altogether. 7 is the minimum. firings are vastly unrealistic (one thing existing coaches have been complaining about longer than i've played, so at least 7 years). its also way harder to turn around a tough situation, because in the real world, top coaches can actually take greater advantage of their coaching, and freshman and sophmores can make a much greater impact.

so, taking an HD situation and talking about who would get fired in d1, while it may be interesting, has little relevance of the quality of the job of the coach in question. they are just too different. im not saying thats good... but it is what it is. none of us want HD firings to be like real life, at least not with the rest of the situation as it is - turnarounds just are way more difficult and take longer. almost everyone would get fired before they got to turn the corner, even if they did a good job. 
4/29/2014 1:53 AM
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:04:00 AM (view original):
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.
"just because it doesn't add up to you doesn't mean it's wrong" - actually, it does... not to be an arrogant *****, but really, it does, there is no question on that front.

that said, low d2 is tough because the players available to you are SIGNIFICANTLY more limited than they are to high d2 schools, its really remarkable if you haven't coached there in a while and you go coach there, how much less you have access too. but that doesn't mean the guys top d3 schools sign aren't available (and then some), and those are more than sufficient to make the NT. you shouldn't be shooting for a title when you have never made the NT, and have C prestige... shooting for the NT is sufficient. there were guys like that available, its just not clear why you missed them. thats why im curious about the guys you signed, what your take on them is, because that will give clues as to whether its the way you evaluate players, or recruiting mechanics. the recruiting strategy error of getting in so many battles speaks for itself, but that can't be the whole story. 

low d2 really is not that easy... thats why all of us would have suggested you stay at d3 a bit longer (and not grab a C prestige job with 11 openings, which is incredibly difficult for a new coach). but if you are going to full on jump in, you may as well try to learn as much on as many fronts as fast as you can. its not a place conducive to slow learning like d3 is, where the structure is much more flat. you definitely made it harder for yourself - which is fine - its just good to be aware of the situation you put yourself in, i think. at least, i'd want to be aware :)
I was actually wishing that I had stayed at Marietta and gotten Joyce and Grow there haha. 

The highest level job opening was B-, but it was in Washington which seemed like it would be a pretty big challenge with regard to access to recruits. 
4/29/2014 1:57 AM
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:50:00 AM (view original):
Again, you're 25-30 at D3, and insulting MY record, during an extremely tough BCS conference rebuild. That's some hubris right there.
You were 20-34 in your first two years there... I was 25-30 in my first two years in the game at a program that's really never been any good.
4/29/2014 2:00 AM
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:50:00 AM (view original):
Again, you're 25-30 at D3, and insulting MY record, during an extremely tough BCS conference rebuild. That's some hubris right there.
You were 20-34 in your first two years there... I was 25-30 in my first two years in the game at a program that's really never been any good.
Oh god. Now you're comparing D3 to D1. Let me spell this out for you. If HD coaches were given grades, I'd probably be at about a C+/B-. You'd be at a D/D-. You're not a good coach here, yet. Insulting me, when I've been trying to help you, is a really bad move.
4/29/2014 2:15 AM
So Billyg, what did you think of those potentials? I'm thinking useful, but not all americans. 
4/29/2014 2:20 AM
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 2:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:50:00 AM (view original):
Again, you're 25-30 at D3, and insulting MY record, during an extremely tough BCS conference rebuild. That's some hubris right there.
You were 20-34 in your first two years there... I was 25-30 in my first two years in the game at a program that's really never been any good.
Oh god. Now you're comparing D3 to D1. Let me spell this out for you. If HD coaches were given grades, I'd probably be at about a C+/B-. You'd be at a D/D-. You're not a good coach here, yet. Insulting me, when I've been trying to help you, is a really bad move.
I haven't insulted you, not intentionally anyway. I've simply pointed out facts, and pointed out holes in your logic. Fact of the matter is that it was probably easier to get 2 very solid JUCOs than trying for a top freshman would have been, and the juniors will be more effective sooner. The way you suggest really wouldn't have resulted in any more talent, and knowing what I know about what happened in my recruiting cycle, i was really close to getting 1-2 more very good players, which would have made my approach look much better. 

Maybe you're just less risk averse than I am, I don't know. But I don't see where honest disagreement and pointing out that you're having your own rebuilding struggles constitutes some over-the-line act.
4/29/2014 2:21 AM
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2014 1:30:00 AM (view original):
etta, d1 recruiting is vastly more difficult. guys who romp d2/d3 - i mean who rattle off 2, 3, 4, 5 championships in no time flat - come to d1 and fall on their faces, because of the recruiting. plus, d1 has loads of coaches who could easily maintain A prestige type programs in lower divisions. its way harder, there is really no question among those who have succeeded at both (i put in that qualifier because a lot of people who never played d1 disagree...)

i personally think the top of d2/d3 are actually pretty tough, and get a bad wrap, the gap between them and top of d1 isn't as big as people make it out to be, IMO. but for say, a normal a to low a+ d2/d3 team, competing on that level (making the NT every year with an average of a NT win or two) isn't even close to as hard as d1. its so different that HDers talk about "best coaches" and "best d2/d3 coaches" because its almost impossible to compare coaches who made it in d1 with those who have not. 

that said, i am curious, what is the potential of the guys you signed? i have no idea, i haven't even looked. i know you said you only have 4 players, which means you really should have been signing guys who are decent to fill spots, not holding out for greats... so just to make it clear, the quality of those guys doesn't really weigh in on the discussion of if there were other guys worth signing who you missed. on 30k, spending 10k on scouting is not unreasonable at all, to find more options, and even if you battled locally, you definitely should be able to win more freshman. but outside that, im kind of curious about the guys you got. i just checked them out, they actually look like they *could* be good, depending on their potential. and that juco sg can contribute right now, even if his potential sucks, the other guys, they need growth (like all freshman d2 recruits and most jucos), so i am reserving judgement.

edit: fyi, d1 also has pulldowns


I went through them before but I will again.

Crawford is black SP, DE, FT and blue LP and BH. So ballpark 75 SP, 65 DE, 45+ LP, 76+ BH. And you have to figure with his WE he'll get there.
Godina is black A, DE, BLK and BH. blue ST. Est max 60 A, 50 DE, 62 BH, 97 ST or something.
Grow is blue A, P, ST and black RB, DE, BLK, LP, FT. So 45+ A, 95 RB, 35 D, 85 BLK, 100 LP, 33+ P, 86+ ST. Btw, does he improve at all during his sitout year? Just wondering.
Joyce is black A, blue RB, DE, LP, BH, ST. So 45 A, 85+ RB, 53+ DE, 81+ LP, 31+ BH (with a 1 P, not sure how much this matters), 74+ ST.

interesting. 

crawford is a good player, for sure. if he doesn't play your off/def, that will certainly limit the utility he provides you, because of the IQ weakness (as you know all about). thats solid though. for the record, red is 0-6, black is 7-20, blue is 21+. the top end of blue varies by ratings. so you can definitely expect crawford to do, on average, better than +7 in spd/def. anyway, his offense abilities should be very substantial, with that per, spd, and bh, with some lp to boot. that will go a long way - strong offensive players are by far the most important players on low end teams. in general, the most important player on any team is their top scorer, but sometimes thats not true with extremely talented teams. but in your situation, hes a very solid pickup.

godina will definitely be able to contribute on offense against lower caliber competition, but he would be a weak scorer against NT quality opponents. there is an effect in this game where lp and per are overly useful against **** defense, while good lp and per backed by poor to mediocre ath/spd are not really very useful at all against quality defense. i believe the scoring in the game is figured in 2 phases - getting open, and then scoring. against bad defense, i don't think you need the spd/bh (for guards, also ath, but to a lesser extent) and the ath for bigs (and other stuff, the extent of which is debated, but ath alone is huge, nothing else is close) to get open against poor defenders. against stronger defenders, with lower ratings in those "getting open" areas, you will take bad shots. you can still make an ok % of them, but for an average bottom half NT team, those guys will still generally struggle. godina has ok ath/spd but he would definitely be in that category of guys who struggle against good teams (NT teams). but, he will be able to contribute for you. his reb sucks for a sf and his bh/pass aren't very good, overall not really a good player, especially being a juco, but he can contribute for sure.

grow will not improve at all during his sitout year, although he can improve in the off season. with his work ethic, you can expect minimal gains outside stamina and some stamina loss, although offseason improvement is VERY volatile (but the expected values are fairly clear - guys in the 30s and low 40s generally gain a handful of points outside sta, and lose a few sta. once you hit like 60, you can start to see pretty significant offseason gains *on average*). that blue ath is critical. he won't be that good for fr/soph year till he gets his ath up, so practice conditioning hard. hopefully thats a high/high ath with like +30 on the horizon. although, against poor competition, his lp might come through for you - but don't be deceived about the value of players like this, from an offensive front, in the NT scene. that low ath and def is really going to be a liability on defense, but generally even in d1, if you can get guys to be good ability wise at 2 out of 3 of their core abilities, you are in good shape. those abilities for guards are offense, defense, guard skills (bh/pass), for bigs, off, def, reb. ath affects everything, its by far the most important category for bigs who score, and its the most important for non-scoring bigs although the gap over reb and def is much less. that said, grow is still a decent pick up. you have to be careful to schedule weak if you rely on guys like this (low ath or spd/bh) for offense, to increase your odds of making the NT. about 70 ath is a good average target for bigs in d2 (when they grow up), but higher ratings elsewhere can definitely make up for lower ath.

joyce is also a decent pickup. that ath is definitely going to hurt, but his reb and lp look like they could be great, while his def should be decent. he is a pretty solid pickup in your position overall.

overall, you found some pretty solid guys talent wise. with good coaching and a team full of guys like that, you could work your way into the NT. going deep would be extremely unlikely, but that's not really the target... anyway, the bigger issue than talent is composition. i mean, with 4 players, it doesn't matter. but assuming you had like, not 11 openings when you started ;) it would still be very important to get a well rounded freshman class. with 2, thats hard, but getting 2 scoring type bigs is as un-well rounded as you could get. with talent like that, not well arranged, it would make your job of making the NT much, much harder.

to be honest, those guys are a bit better than i expected. that said, im completely confident if you widened scope in some variety of ways described earlier, you could find more. of course, you might have spent too much too early for that to be possible *this time around*, but its worth keeping in mind for next time. the cost of scouting goes down late. i was always an early d2/d3 recruiter myself, but others have been very successful later - you need to battle less so you can search more. and if you do battle, you want to be smart about your battles - either recognize you are behind early and get out immediately (cheaply, even pull scholarship and redshirt to manage perceptions of other coaches looking at your other players), or knock the other guy off so you can claim him so to speak (and especially, so you can manage perceptions - not sure if you saw or read my post in that other thread, but managing perceptions is absolutely vital in HD recruiting)

also, you want to focus more on composition, getting decent players you can coach is better than reaching for studs via pulldowns and the like. most coaches will say recruiting is the most important aspect of the game - but at least two coaches will say team planning is the most important aspect of the game (one being me, the other being OR who has like 35 championships). so you should definitely keep an eye on that. again, i know its hard with only 2 freshman, but really, its very important. you don't need studs to win, but you do need a well rounded team with guys who specialize in things that complement the rest of the team, just like real teams. its probably the most realistic aspect of the game. black hole scorers will hurt less than in real life and of course, the value of ratings and what those ratings mean is confusing and certainly out of whack to some degree. but once you come to terms with what makes a player good in what way (at scoring or rebounding or whatever) in HD, then those abilities combine in fairly realistic ways, team-wise. there are definitely exceptions at the extremes, like black hole players not really hurting you if you just have 1 at a time on the court, or how you can overload scoring to 1 player and be more successful than you should be. but there is a nice huge window in the middle where stuff is actually pretty sensible.
4/29/2014 2:25 AM
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 2:15:00 AM (view original):
So Billyg, what did you think of those potentials? I'm thinking useful, but not all americans. 
was typing my reply... even though im a fast typer, i tend to think things out. when im not half drunk, at least :) the one thing i have a clear claim to on this site is word count... the number of page long threads and 5-10 page long sitemails i've typed might equal everyone else in HD put together, over the last 7 years :) i hope you take that reply for what it is, a sincere effort to give some quality advice, so i didn't just waste that whole page of typing...
4/29/2014 2:25 AM
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 2:20:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 2:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by ettaexpress on 4/29/2014 1:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by wildcat98 on 4/29/2014 1:50:00 AM (view original):
Again, you're 25-30 at D3, and insulting MY record, during an extremely tough BCS conference rebuild. That's some hubris right there.
You were 20-34 in your first two years there... I was 25-30 in my first two years in the game at a program that's really never been any good.
Oh god. Now you're comparing D3 to D1. Let me spell this out for you. If HD coaches were given grades, I'd probably be at about a C+/B-. You'd be at a D/D-. You're not a good coach here, yet. Insulting me, when I've been trying to help you, is a really bad move.
I haven't insulted you, not intentionally anyway. I've simply pointed out facts, and pointed out holes in your logic. Fact of the matter is that it was probably easier to get 2 very solid JUCOs than trying for a top freshman would have been, and the juniors will be more effective sooner. The way you suggest really wouldn't have resulted in any more talent, and knowing what I know about what happened in my recruiting cycle, i was really close to getting 1-2 more very good players, which would have made my approach look much better. 

Maybe you're just less risk averse than I am, I don't know. But I don't see where honest disagreement and pointing out that you're having your own rebuilding struggles constitutes some over-the-line act.
You didn't point out holes in my logic. I gave you some hints and tips, and to avoid admitting that perhaps what I'd written might be useful, you attempted to slag off what I've been doing at Villanova. That you can't see how what you've written could POSSIBLY be taken as insulting is just beyond me.

But you do what you want to do. At least you're (sort of) listening to Gillispie, so maybe he can get through to you.
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.