Below are some common myths that I think are common in HD, they mostly pertain to D3 but to a lesser degree all levels,


1.   You need "x"-   Nothing in this game is an absolute.  There is no magic bullet or simple answer to win championships.

2. Don't recruit players with a WE under "x"-   High WE certainly helps, don't get me wrong but it isn't a requirement.   My 4th string post player (about 10 minutes agame in the NT) had a 2 WE on a team that just won a NT.   If a players scores are good enough to play, they are good enough to play.

3. You need a minimum score in an atribute for a cerain position-   I see this a lot for post players, the "I won't recruit anyone for a center with an ATH under 50"  mentality.   My starting center with a 38 ATH averaged over 8 boards a game in the NT.  Decisions are based on a multitude of attributes and the sum of the parts is more important than any one score.

4. You need to max out players-  This is similar to #2, I rarley max out players growth and not a single player on my recent championship team maxed out all their attributes and only one was even close.  I am concerned with what I can get my players to, not what their max scorers are.

5. You need A+ IQ in your offense and defense-  Sure this helps but isn't required.   I had one A+ IQ on my most recent team.

6. You can't recruit nationally in D3-  I had three players from Washington (state), one from Hawaii and one from Alabama on my team.

7. Ball handling is more important than pass in PG's-   My PG had a 53 BH on this team.   "Point guard" skills are PASS, SPD and BH in order, in my opinion.   This guy is also an example of #3 in my opinion, since his speed and pass were so high (95 and 81) is compensated for his lowish BH.



These are my opinions, just wanted to share, take them for what their worth

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/11/2016 10:24:00 AM (view original):
Below are some common myths that I think are common in HD, they mostly pertain to D3 but to a lesser degree all levels,


1.   You need "x"-   Nothing in this game is an absolute.  There is no magic bullet or simple answer to win championships.

2. Don't recruit players with a WE under "x"-   High WE certainly helps, don't get me wrong but it isn't a requirement.   My 4th string post player (about 10 minutes agame in the NT) had a 2 WE on a team that just won a NT.   If a players scores are good enough to play, they are good enough to play.

3. You need a minimum score in an atribute for a cerain position-   I see this a lot for post players, the "I won't recruit anyone for a center with an ATH under 50"  mentality.   My starting center with a 38 ATH averaged over 8 boards a game in the NT.  Decisions are based on a multitude of attributes and the sum of the parts is more important than any one score.

4. You need to max out players-  This is similar to #2, I rarley max out players growth and not a single player on my recent championship team maxed out all their attributes and only one was even close.  I am concerned with what I can get my players to, not what their max scorers are.

5. You need A+ IQ in your offense and defense-  Sure this helps but isn't required.   I had one A+ IQ on my most recent team.

6. You can't recruit nationally in D3-  I had three players from Washington (state), one from Hawaii and one from Alabama on my team.

7. Ball handling is more important than pass in PG's-   My PG had a 53 BH on this team.   "Point guard" skills are PASS, SPD and BH in order, in my opinion.   This guy is also an example of #3 in my opinion, since his speed and pass were so high (95 and 81) is compensated for his lowish BH.



These are my opinions, just wanted to share, take them for what their worth

1. Completely agreed. One of the joys of this game and D3 is that there is no set way to win.

2. Agree, with a caveat. I think a low WE guy is fine to recruit if he has the ratings to play a specific role.  For example, I usually run zone defense. I will recruit a low WE guy with great athleticism/defense ratings to be the guy who raises my defensive averages and is my dirty work player. But I would never recruit a low WE guy to be my stud player. If you recruit a low WE guy, you have to know exactly what role they will play (defensive stopper, bench scorer, bench rebounder/shot blocker, etc.)

3. Agreed. You should look for benchmarks in certain areas, but never exclude a guy just because he doesn't hit that mark. On my Bridgewater State team, I have a center who maxed out at 41 ATH that averages 10 ppg and 9 rpg.

4. Agreed. You need to know your players' potential in key areas and get them to the point that they can be a successful player. Who cares that you maxed out your PG's shot block rating?

5. Agreed. The difference between A and A+ is small enough that it isn't worth chasing at the exclusion of other ratings.

6. Agreed with a caveat. You can recruit nationally, but you can't be scattershot, randomly throwing FSS money where ever the wind takes you. But you can be a recruiting sniper and find guys in little recruited states.

7. Agreed. 

all good advice. what TJ is saying in #3 is very similar to the "ability vs attribute" issue. don't recruit a player because they have a good rating - recruit them because they are good at actually doing something (preferably, two things). some people will say, i don't like that guard, his speed is a little low. ok, but how is he as a defender, scorer, and in terms of guard skills? if hes still very strong at 2/3, hes still a great player. abilities except for rebounding are the sum of at least 3 cores.

the rule of thumb for those seeking to compete at a high level, is to recruit players who are good in 2 abilities - scoring, defense, reb, and guard skills. for bigs guard skills isn't a core ability, for guards reb is not, so its really 2 out of the other 3. extreme scorers are the primary exception to that rule of thumb, if you get a guy who can score enough for 2 people, you can tolerate him not being strong in another ability. in d3 the rule of thumb is harder to follow than elsewhere, but its still a good mark to shoot for. if you think about, what makes a great team, if you had 10 ability strengths, split into 4 defenders, 2 strong rebounders, 2 strong guard skills players, and 2 strong scorers, you pretty much have all the vital pieces - you can improve on that, marginally,  but taking anything away is generally a big hit (2nd guard skills player at lower divisions is probably a want-to-have, not need-to-have, but everything else is really a need-to-have). the math is pretty simple, its going to be very hard to hit those 10 abilities on your lineup, if you aren't recruiting guys with 2 clear ability strengths.

TJ, you and I think alike in our approach to DIII. In fact, I modeled much of my approach to DePauw in Knight after you (in terms of nationally recruiting and the types of players I would look for--viewing my team as a whole and not just looking for individual talents--but for players that would fit specific needs we had). 

Slight caveat to #5--people should not mistake not needing "A+" IQ's with not needing decent IQ's. I'd say a team is at its best when at least 7-8 players have A- IQ's or higher. But overall I agree, when I won back-to-back NC's, the first year I think the highest IQ on my team was one player who was A in both O and D. 

This is very helpful though for new players. I see way too many people ignoring talented low WE players who could be huge supplements off the bench (it's often a nice way of filling a gap for very limited recruiting cash too) and equally as many people limiting their recruiting to their home state or to just one or two locations. 

Three of the best players I ever had at DePauw (based in Indiana) in Knight were from New Hampshire, Hawaii, and North Dakota. 

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 2/11/2016 2:16:00 PM (view original):
TJ, you and I think alike in our approach to DIII. In fact, I modeled much of my approach to DePauw in Knight after you (in terms of nationally recruiting and the types of players I would look for--viewing my team as a whole and not just looking for individual talents--but for players that would fit specific needs we had). 

Slight caveat to #5--people should not mistake not needing "A+" IQ's with not needing decent IQ's. I'd say a team is at its best when at least 7-8 players have A- IQ's or higher. But overall I agree, when I won back-to-back NC's, the first year I think the highest IQ on my team was one player who was A in both O and D. 

This is very helpful though for new players. I see way too many people ignoring talented low WE players who could be huge supplements off the bench (it's often a nice way of filling a gap for very limited recruiting cash too) and equally as many people limiting their recruiting to their home state or to just one or two locations. 

Three of the best players I ever had at DePauw (based in Indiana) in Knight were from New Hampshire, Hawaii, and North Dakota. 

" I see way too many people ignoring talented low WE players."-sol_phenom3

My mentor is telling me not to redshirt my low work ethic guy but cut him. "Cut ties with players that won't help you as soon as you can."-darmoc29099. I need a extra year with one of my two first recruits should've redshirted him when I recruited him. https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3239063 That is his player profile should I cut him? Or should I redshirt him?!?! I need to max out my three seniors at c this year the weaker one of the c's is starting at power foward.

I would listen to darnoc.....he's good.....RS'ing low WE guys is not a great idea because they don't grow much....RS'ing bad players is always a bad idea

Great post.  I think recently, I have become too enamored with ATH and DEF with my D3 team (and D2 for that matter) at the expense of skill categories.

Also, I would go so far as to say distance recruiting is easier in D3 than local recruiting, unless you're isolated.

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 2/11/2016 2:16:00 PM (view original):
TJ, you and I think alike in our approach to DIII. In fact, I modeled much of my approach to DePauw in Knight after you (in terms of nationally recruiting and the types of players I would look for--viewing my team as a whole and not just looking for individual talents--but for players that would fit specific needs we had). 

Slight caveat to #5--people should not mistake not needing "A+" IQ's with not needing decent IQ's. I'd say a team is at its best when at least 7-8 players have A- IQ's or higher. But overall I agree, when I won back-to-back NC's, the first year I think the highest IQ on my team was one player who was A in both O and D. 

This is very helpful though for new players. I see way too many people ignoring talented low WE players who could be huge supplements off the bench (it's often a nice way of filling a gap for very limited recruiting cash too) and equally as many people limiting their recruiting to their home state or to just one or two locations. 

Three of the best players I ever had at DePauw (based in Indiana) in Knight were from New Hampshire, Hawaii, and North Dakota. 

On the IQs, I agree. In my experience, if a player has a C+ IQ or lower, they will not play up to their ratings (i.e. their performance will be worse than their ratings would otherwise indicate).  A player with a B-/B/B+ IQ will generally play to the level of their abilities (assuming they are in an O/D that fits their skills and other factors are also well-aligned for them). Once a player gets to A- or better, they will generally play to the absolute best of their abilities. 

So if you have a team with 7 or 8 guys at A- or better, their performance will be greater than the sum of their parts. But chasing an A+ rating is a fools game. The difference in performance between A+ and A- is too small to justify the massive investment of practice time that it takes to achieve that goal.

Posted by grimacedance on 2/11/2016 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 2/11/2016 2:16:00 PM (view original):
TJ, you and I think alike in our approach to DIII. In fact, I modeled much of my approach to DePauw in Knight after you (in terms of nationally recruiting and the types of players I would look for--viewing my team as a whole and not just looking for individual talents--but for players that would fit specific needs we had). 

Slight caveat to #5--people should not mistake not needing "A+" IQ's with not needing decent IQ's. I'd say a team is at its best when at least 7-8 players have A- IQ's or higher. But overall I agree, when I won back-to-back NC's, the first year I think the highest IQ on my team was one player who was A in both O and D. 

This is very helpful though for new players. I see way too many people ignoring talented low WE players who could be huge supplements off the bench (it's often a nice way of filling a gap for very limited recruiting cash too) and equally as many people limiting their recruiting to their home state or to just one or two locations. 

Three of the best players I ever had at DePauw (based in Indiana) in Knight were from New Hampshire, Hawaii, and North Dakota. 

On the IQs, I agree. In my experience, if a player has a C+ IQ or lower, they will not play up to their ratings (i.e. their performance will be worse than their ratings would otherwise indicate).  A player with a B-/B/B+ IQ will generally play to the level of their abilities (assuming they are in an O/D that fits their skills and other factors are also well-aligned for them). Once a player gets to A- or better, they will generally play to the absolute best of their abilities. 

So if you have a team with 7 or 8 guys at A- or better, their performance will be greater than the sum of their parts. But chasing an A+ rating is a fools game. The difference in performance between A+ and A- is too small to justify the massive investment of practice time that it takes to achieve that goal.

agreed - in d2/d3 and low-mid d1. championship caliber d1, you need that 25mpg team practice set.

But the champ d1 caliber you have a guy you're trying to get from (to pick a rating at random) 92 ATH to 100 ATH.  Hard to do in the short term.  

But your 25 mins in Motion will get him from F to C-, which is a HUGE difference in a year.

Posted by guyo26 on 2/11/2016 4:14:00 PM (view original):
But the champ d1 caliber you have a guy you're trying to get from (to pick a rating at random) 92 ATH to 100 ATH.  Hard to do in the short term.  

But your 25 mins in Motion will get him from F to C-, which is a HUGE difference in a year.

25 minutes in one season should get IQ to B-/C+ heck 23 minutes I almost always get B-/C+ IQ in one season.

Well.. I try to always take guys who will be greater than 50 DEF. But that is not a hard/fast rule, just a preference.

The only real abaolute rule is.. There are no absolute rules :)

I'd also like to put forth the myth of needing ath/def to be good(at least in D3).

I've molded my d3 teams into spd/bh/pas demons(literal opposites of mfnmeyers).  I don't purposely target bad ath/def, I obviously aim for elite ath/spd/def, but when it isn't possible i revert to high spd/bh/pas than ath/def and I've been pretty successful.

I've won a NC in phelan where my starting lineup had 1 guy over 50 defense and 1 other guy over 50 ath. with averages of 50 ath 60 spd and 49 def.

I've been runner up in Iba with 50 ath 63 spd and 45 defense(starting defense was solid)

and currently in Iba I have the #5 team 22-2 1 rpi 2 sos(about to claim 1 sos again) with a team that has 2 players over 50 defense and averages of 44 ath and 35 defense(now I see myself being a 2nd round/s16 team but I'm having an elite regular season)

That being said my spd/bh/pas was off the charts and I had 1 elite per threat and 1 elite lp threat with great stamina.  In Phelan I ran uptempo all season and then surprised with slowdown for the entire nt and Iba I believe i ran uptempo every single game.

All were motion/press teams btw.

Personally I think if you can't get elite ath/spd/def guys i'd aim for elite spd/bh/pas I see a lot of teams with good ath/def and no other ability at all that are just average in performance the only wait to truly maximize the ath/def is to go the mfnmyers route.

That's # 1!

Posted by guyo26 on 2/11/2016 4:14:00 PM (view original):
But the champ d1 caliber you have a guy you're trying to get from (to pick a rating at random) 92 ATH to 100 ATH.  Hard to do in the short term.  

But your 25 mins in Motion will get him from F to C-, which is a HUGE difference in a year.

Yeah, I think what Guyo says on the IQ stuff, is huge. I still haven't tried it but I am thinking about going 25/25 on my Transylvania team that is filled with juniors and sophomores.

Plus, I like the way Trenton won it. There is no distinct way of winning in DIII. There is a way of seeing the game. CarlBuzz has been a high ath, def zone coach and it has worked. It really dépends.

I am having success in IBA with my DII team, but I truly don't even have a speedy lineup, 50 overall nor an athletic one 56 overall, not really good defensively, 60 overall. But my PE, BH, and PASS are really high. I play big with three forwards at the SF-PF-C (took the strat from Gillespie D1 team at St-Bonaventure) and my PG is mainly a passing guy with speed. He can score a bit too.

The way Trenton won made me rethink my strats overall. I think I've put way too much emphasis on defense in DIII and DII.