I just have two questions for myers-

1) Why only Dickinson in every world?
2) How the heck does he keep them all straight? I'd forget which team had which players literally every day.

Maybe i read this thread differently than most, but I didnt think anyone was crapping on Myers.  I thought it was more of a commentary on the type of team not the person running it.  I give Kudos to Mfnmeyers for figuring out a way to be consistently competitive in DIII.  

It can be frustrating playing against, and losing to, a team that has very little basketball skills.  I think it was his team in Rupp that won a NC with a PG with a passing rating of 8 and a SG with a passing of 10.  IMHO, that backcourt should never be competitive.  it Should turn the ball over constantly.  

Again, there is nothing wrong with what he does with his teams.  I think some might be critical that he does the same thing with all of his dickinson teams, that just wouldnt be any fun for me personally, but he does everything within the rules and he does it all very respectfully.

People have every right to be critical of this type of team, it is a gimmick, and should probably push for it to be changed, but I dont think anyone is faulting Mfnmyers for taking advantage of a situation while creating teams within the guidelines of the game.

Posted by clansing on 12/19/2015 3:18:00 AM (view original):
Let me be the first to say that this is an absolutely ridiculous post. There are a handful of teams (probably like 10) across ALL worlds that have this build and you want to sit here and call out the 3 or 4 coaches that actually use it?? Seriously??? EVERYBODY that plays HD knows ATH and DEF are overvalued and like jsajsa, jtt and zorzii have stated, this only works at D3 and is beatable with proper game planning. As with any team, you choose to sacrifice important attributes for the prioritization of other attributes that you believe will give you the best chance to win. If anyone actually took the time to study mfnmyers teams they would realize that there is indeed a strategy behind his game planning and team composition and that this isn't just some OP "hack". I know it's easy to get caught up in the hype of questioning the whole ATH/DEF thing (which you absolutely have a right to) but just keep in mind that this is just one of MANY ways to win in HD. If you have any questions about how it works, why I value certain attributes over others, what attributes I value in certain positions, offense/defenses, etc. I encourage you to sitemail me and I'll do my best to explain it for you :)

P.S. TJ I'm pretty sure we're already seeing what that looks like in Phelan lol

I was the original starter of this thread and yes I was most definitely referring to your team.  Honestly, I think you should get full credit for any success you have. I've never taken issue with anyone that tries to win, especially if it's just on athleticism and defense. If it was a personal attack, I would've used your username.

My issue, if you want to call it that has more to do with the game itself. I have no problem with a team winning on athleticism and defense, however I also think there needs to be some type of balance with the other skills. Should a great team in Def and Ath, but poor in all the other skills beat out a team with average/decent Def and Ath with above average skills in speed, rebounding, ballhandling, passing and shooting?

thewizard, milwood, no offense taken, I'm sorry if I came off a little too harsh. I understand where you guys are coming from, the game isn't perfect, but I still think this is a legitimate way to win. If this were an issue at higher divisions I would be right there with you guys in saying something needs to be fixed, but we're talking about one division. If you take a look at my schedule in Phelan you'll notice I played terps' #1 ranked SUNY Geneseo team--a prime example of me getting my *** kicked my a much more balanced, and ultimately better team. I've lost four times this season (5 if you include my exhibition with #1 RPI Shenandoah) to better, balanced teams. So thewizard to answer your question, no ath/def teams shouldn't win their games in terms of actual skill, but they win their games at the free throw line, and if you know how to counter that then you know how to beat me or mfnmyers or anyone else who runs their team(s) like this.

It's well within the rules and given the way the engine operates, it's an effective way to win.  But I often see teams that could easily be more classified as track & field teams as opposed to basketball teams.  Eh, to each their own.  As Clansing said, those type teams aren't unbeatable and  they aren't breaking any rules, so there shouldn't really be any uproar.  Just craft a team of your own to counter and beat those other teams.  My two cents.

I didn't have much of an uproar other than stating the fact that what makes those teams plausible is the close linkage between ath and defense which makes it easier to collect those players than it would be were the two ratings not so closely linked.

I never really looked at Myers teams that closely before {that is to say.. Why / how he wins} , but now that clansing mentioned it.. Shooting a bunch of free throws does seem to be in play with Dickinson most of the time. I might have to look into that aspect beating those kind of teams.

The increased free throws might just be because, since he never shoots 3 point shots, most people play him at a high minus setting for defense.

So, looking at how to minimize free throws might help

Nearly every time I play him or a similar team I play slow down -1. I don't care how deep he is, I don't care about his talent level, I don't care about my talent advantage etc. etc. The only way for him to score to is get to the line and screw with your rotation by getting you into foul trouble. Playing those kinds of team uptempo or at heavy minus only plays into their hands (unless you are playing a zone). It amazes me how not everyone has figured this out yet. ... I'm something like 17-1 against him doing this.

Yeah, but you're like 17-1 against everyone.

Posted by jsajsa on 12/21/2015 6:18:00 AM (view original):
Nearly every time I play him or a similar team I play slow down -1. I don't care how deep he is, I don't care about his talent level, I don't care about my talent advantage etc. etc. The only way for him to score to is get to the line and screw with your rotation by getting you into foul trouble. Playing those kinds of team uptempo or at heavy minus only plays into their hands (unless you are playing a zone). It amazes me how not everyone has figured this out yet. ... I'm something like 17-1 against him doing this.

Right, it is obvious when looking at it.  Just never tied that type of team to high free throws before.

the are edge case strategies, and always will be. i don't play d3 but it doesn't seem like this one is too bad, i dont think it needs to draw the focused attention of a nerf stick, as some would suggest. i do think ath/def should be decoupled, but that is a belief i hold in general, not because of anything here.

i think you have to look at why the system works, and to see if that is really a problem. one time, this guy gave 50 distro to his starting sg, 50 to his backup, and 0 to everyone else, and the results were somewhat obscene. to me, thats more of a gimmick, than what you guys are talking about.

the ath/def teams ive seen killing it, they worked for good reasons. defense is obviously an important thing, and being that good at defense, its got to count for something, no matter which ratings making up the defensive ability formulas. running fb/fcp with a full, experienced team, is always going to be a very powerful strategy - it has to be, in the best case scenario, to compensate for how bad it is when teams are short. the hardest team to beat, in any division, would be an experienced, even 12 man rotation running fb/fcp, and to me that is right - if a system forces you to have more depth of talent than anyone else - when you get super deep - its got to take advantage of that depth of talent, more than the other systems, or its a broken (useless) scheme.

so, take the two above, great d and great depth with a fb/fcp, and you already have a really dangerous team, on the up years. with solid offensive talent, for a ft based scoring system, you can definitely see how a team would be hard to beat - and i don't think that is really an ath/def gimmick - its taking a variety of edge case strategies and combining them for good effect. i really don't see a problem with it. plus, a well prepared team running slowdown will certainly have the upper hand, as jsa points out.

the last comment ill make is, to me, for a gimmick to require adjustment, pushing further and further to that gimmick must yield better results (well, not must, but sort of a litmus test). if you take a mfnmyers team, and asked if you traded out 1 elite defender guard for 1 elite scorer who could pass, would the team benefit? my take is, absolutely. i'm not sure playing that strategy to the extreme actually yields the best results - and im pretty confident it doesnt. in this game, diminishing returns are everything, and putting too many eggs in one basket rarely helps. i think what is happening is, mfnmyers just happens to be a great coach, and is doing well with a very interesting scheme (which is much more than an ath/def scheme). i don't think its the best scheme, but i suspect he could be highly successful with other schemes - this just happens to be the one hes drawn to. hes leveraging the natural synergy of 3 systems, the ft based scoring allowing him to really focus on defense and depth, the fb/fcp benefiting from a ft-drawing scheme, all that good stuff (fb/fcp or just fcp ft drawing schemes are fairly common and generally very successful on their own, even without elite ath/def). i don't think there is anything wrong with the setup for any of those 3 systems, outside of minor tweaking - ft only scoring should be penalized more from the inability to spread the offense - that kind of thing. anyway, i just think its a great coach running an interesting system, nothing more... now if the d3 worlds start seeing champion after champion running the same strat, it probably deserves a closer look, but at this point its just interesting, not problematic, in my view.

I run a high ATH/DEF FB/FCP team in Wooden D2, and I can tell you that there is definitely more nuance than just recruiting for those two attributes. There are minimum speed requirements for bigs, and I always look for good-rebounding guards. In good years my STA is top 5. While my guards don't always have premier BH/PAS skills, I try to have no one on the roster fall below 20/20 in BH/PAS. Even if my LP/PE skills are below average overall, I always try to have at least one guy on the roster with high LP and another with high PE, so that I can leverage them in the right situation. My WE is always among the best in the conference, and I run 24/24 to get my IQs up quickly and maximize them over four years.

I have only been running FB/FCP (ran a lot of motion/man prior to that) for a few years, and I am constantly tweaking the formula to see what results. Sacrifice some ATH/DEF for elite SPD in a PG, sacrifice ATH/DEF for elite REB in a big. Trade DEF for BLK in a big. Go with a couple of PGs, a couple of Cs, and a whole bunch of SFs and see what happens. You experiment with what you can within the confines of the offense/defense you have chosen.

ATH/DEF/STA are key in running a successful FB/FCP team at any level. Anyone can do that, and have a moderately successful team. But you need to take a deeper look at consistently successful teams and coaches and you'll see a host of other recruiting strategies, maybe not quite as obvious as just high ATH/DEF.

[Note: This doesn't take into account individual gameplanning, which is one helluva lot more than the +/- choices you make; nor does it consider non-conf scheduling strategy, which is seldom cited in post-season success.]

Posted by jsajsa on 12/21/2015 6:18:00 AM (view original):
Nearly every time I play him or a similar team I play slow down -1. I don't care how deep he is, I don't care about his talent level, I don't care about my talent advantage etc. etc. The only way for him to score to is get to the line and screw with your rotation by getting you into foul trouble. Playing those kinds of team uptempo or at heavy minus only plays into their hands (unless you are playing a zone). It amazes me how not everyone has figured this out yet. ... I'm something like 17-1 against him doing this.

Went with this strategy, lost 56-54 and I was outscored 14-4 in the final 7:38. On a positive note; we should win the next 17 now that we started 0-1. ;) 

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=12687462

I now think I am one of the best  coaches to never make it passed the Elite 8 (0-14). The team that just lost (Castleton St) has been to 5 of the last 6 Elite 8's and 6 of the last 8, this was the year I thought we were finally going to break through and given the final four would have been a big favorite to win it all. 

Posted by cbriese on 12/22/2015 6:23:00 AM (view original):
I run a high ATH/DEF FB/FCP team in Wooden D2, and I can tell you that there is definitely more nuance than just recruiting for those two attributes. There are minimum speed requirements for bigs, and I always look for good-rebounding guards. In good years my STA is top 5. While my guards don't always have premier BH/PAS skills, I try to have no one on the roster fall below 20/20 in BH/PAS. Even if my LP/PE skills are below average overall, I always try to have at least one guy on the roster with high LP and another with high PE, so that I can leverage them in the right situation. My WE is always among the best in the conference, and I run 24/24 to get my IQs up quickly and maximize them over four years.

I have only been running FB/FCP (ran a lot of motion/man prior to that) for a few years, and I am constantly tweaking the formula to see what results. Sacrifice some ATH/DEF for elite SPD in a PG, sacrifice ATH/DEF for elite REB in a big. Trade DEF for BLK in a big. Go with a couple of PGs, a couple of Cs, and a whole bunch of SFs and see what happens. You experiment with what you can within the confines of the offense/defense you have chosen.

ATH/DEF/STA are key in running a successful FB/FCP team at any level. Anyone can do that, and have a moderately successful team. But you need to take a deeper look at consistently successful teams and coaches and you'll see a host of other recruiting strategies, maybe not quite as obvious as just high ATH/DEF.

[Note: This doesn't take into account individual gameplanning, which is one helluva lot more than the +/- choices you make; nor does it consider non-conf scheduling strategy, which is seldom cited in post-season success.]

this post lines up with my post perfectly. there is too much strategy to call this approach a gimmick. plus, i disagree with a couple strategy points in his post. who is to say who is right? cbriese was a great coach before i started, and he is the one having success with the strategy, but i also have played a lot of fb and fcp (not often together) with success. i think both of us have pretty valid opinions on the subject. i suspect if we grabbed a few more coaches who play the system with success, and you asked everyone what they did, you'd get 5 moderately different answers. thats strategy - not a gimmick. everyone knows ath/def are a bit overpowered - almost every top coach/team makes them a priority - this really isn't that different. i like the mfnmyers teams, personally - its innovative, in a game that sees too little innovation.

Love his style. I started my own experiment based on him with my Staten Island team only looking for high ATH/DEF. Should've made the NT losing by 2 points in CT final with 6 freshman.

EDIT: One guy just won D3 National Freshman of the Year.
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=12429&pid=3217590