I don't want to hear people tell me that guys with 95-100 stamina shouldn't be able to play 35 minutes of effective basketball in HD.

It sure looks to me like Pullen is playing just as well as he did at the beginning of the game.

I think the flaw in HD is that guys play too poorly when they get tired. Most well conditioned athletes can still perform well when they are tired. It's not because they don't get fatigued they just are able to play close to their A game while fatigued. Look at Michael Jordan when he scored 39 or whatever it was when he had the flu and nearly collapsed after the game. He was exhausted during the game but his conditioning allowed to still be the best player on the court.

Also another thing that isn't part of this game is TV timeouts. It's a lot easier to stay fresh when you have 6 extra timeouts that we don't get in HD.

Agreed on all points. I'm just saying that "fairly fresh" doesn't mean that the most conditioned athlete in college basketball can only manage 25 minutes.

I do agree that the penalty is simply too large for top stamina guys, and that's the real problem.

I dunno, Pullen looked pretty gassed to me....as did most of the players on the court. I think if K-state had an equally talented player on the bench they would have come in.

In WIS speak, That was both teams in the yellow and orange all OT2 due to fatigue settings and foul trouble.

There were several uncontested shots and a lot of short ones due to fatigue I think near the end, but both teams were equally fatigued.

I went to the first two rounds in Buffalo and I can't imagine stamina ever coming into play. Every time you turn around, there's another time out. It's ridiculous. I'm an old, fat guy and I could play 40 minutes with all the breaks these guys get. I'm assuming they don't get all the TO's during the regular season, but even still, my HD guy with 99 stamina should be able to play 30 minutes at "getting tired".

I'm not that interested in a game where you can play with 7-man rotations, even if that is a little more like real life. Makes things too easy, takes away the value of depth, managing your budget in recruiting, and on and on. I think the plus of making it a little more like real life would be far outweighed by the minuses.

I would actually prefer a game where we only had to play 7 or 8 guys.

On most of my teams, I try to run 10. Personally, I like to try to have a redshirt and an ineligible on my roster every season, if at all possible. Haven't been able to do it much lately though for some reason.

Didn't D.J. Gay play almost all if not the entire game in the opening round against Tenn?

I think this is a big part of the testing, I'll admit I follow it less religiously than I did the first few weeks, but I know at least for a while a huge topic was stamina and minutes.

I think that HD does let players play less than RL, but I think its better when you need more players, and that a roster of 6 really good players vs. 12 above average players is a good game.

Still don't think that players should be ably to play the whole game at fairly fresh. Any player. None of them should be able to,.

Pullen sat out some of the 1st half with foul trouble. He played 40/50 minuntes 5 other players played more minutes than him. If you ask me he looked more gassed than he should have. With the TO's, all the free throws, and breaks for OT... 40 mintues should be a walk in th park and no harder than it is for me to walk out and get the mail.

But in HD I do think I like when depth matters.....