Here's a complaint I have... I would love some people's feedback if you agree or disagree...

Teams that start 4 guards are regularly beating dominant complete teams and winning national championships at the highest levels here. This would not happen in real life. There has to be some sort of height component involved or penalty if a PG starts at the PF position. Otherwise, we're gonna be playing in a guard league pretty soon.

specific questions to discuss:
1) Have any teams in NCAA D1 ball ever won national championships with literally zero socring from inside? With literally 1 regular contributor on the floor over 6'4"?
2) Do you see this as becoming a problem (D1 level in particular)? 
3) should they do anything about it? 

I don't see this as a problem in D2 and D3. I have very little D1 experience, and 0 high level D1 experience to really comment.

I do feel that the only way to really win at this game is great guard play though. My Allen D2 team will have 6 PGs on the roster after this recruiting period (assuming I don't lose one before signings tonight). I've played PGs at SF before but never had one good enough to be a PF, that is probably the difference between D1 and D2 guards though.

I feel like it can be combatted however because I have seen really dominant big men in this game. I think the main thing is that there are a ton of fast great guards, so they tend to be everywhere. There are not many great big men though, if you have 1 or 2 of them on your team it will really set you apart, especially on the offensive end where their guards at PF should not be able to contain your big men at the same position.

They didn't win the NT but the 1966 RU Kentucky team, "Rupp's Runts" started 6'5", 6'5", 6'4", 6'4" and 6'0"

But I agree with you it shouldn't be acceptable here.

I don't have a problem with it if the 6'4" guys guys have reb ratings of 80.

I think the major problem is a combination of bigs' uselessness as scorers without good passing guards and reb not being as important as it should be. 

And I agree, you don't win in this game without a dominant backcourt, but you can certainly win without a dominant frontcourt.

In 1966 6'5" was tall for a baskettball player most forwards in the NBA were 6'6" at that time. Willis Reed the knicks great center was only 6'9"

I also can't comment on DI, but at DIII the only problem I have with guards is the ridiculousness that a 5 foot something PG with no blocking or rebounding ability is supposed hold his own against a legit scoring SF just because he has a good DEF rating. I agree there should be some height or strength penalty, not a rating, in terms of guarding bigger men. For example, if X amount of inches smaller or X amount of strength (this number would have to be added alongside height and weight and would be generally basically in line with a player's height and weight) weaker, then the penalty kicks in.

But to the OPs point for DI, I believe the Bearcats won a couple titles back well before I was born with 6-5 Oscar Robertson playing PF and C. Just what came to mind... different time...

Posted by jsajsa on 6/11/2012 11:17:00 AM (view original):
I also can't comment on DI, but at DIII the only problem I have with guards is the ridiculousness that a 5 foot something PG with no blocking or rebounding ability is supposed hold his own against a legit scoring SF just because he has a good DEF rating. I agree there should be some height or strength penalty, not a rating, in terms of guarding bigger men. For example, if X amount of inches smaller or X amount of strength (this number would have to be added alongside height and weight and would be generally basically in line with a player's height and weight) weaker, then the penalty kicks in.

But to the OPs point for DI, I believe the Bearcats won a couple titles back well before I was born with 6-5 Oscar Robertson playing PF and C. Just what came to mind... different time...

I don't like height/weight playing a role outside the ratings.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a breakdown of interior def/perimeter def.  Would completely change the game, though, and I don't know if anyone wants that.

There was a time when rebounding was too dominant. The top teams always had large rebounding margins over their opponents.  Now, rebounding seems to be more of a team attribute rather than individual.

There needs to be more of a balance, with rebounding contributing more

Villanova started four guards in 2006 (Randy Foye, Allan Ray, Mike Nardi, and Kyle Lowry) and made the Elite Eight. Still convinced that if Curtis Sumpter were healthy they would've won it all.

No question.  Actually, I believe Sumpter was healthy enough to play in the tourney (maybe not 100%), but decided against it because he didn't want to waste his medical redshirt season.

Posted by backboy13 on 6/11/2012 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Villanova started four guards in 2006 (Randy Foye, Allan Ray, Mike Nardi, and Kyle Lowry) and made the Elite Eight. Still convinced that if Curtis Sumpter were healthy they would've won it all.

The 2006 Nova team was the first thing that came to mind when I started reading this thread. 

I haven't seen a team start a G at PF.   I see G's at SF all the time and I salivate if I see the <10 in REB. 

I have seen a guard at SF and a SF at PF and a PF at C.  K-State in Allen does that pretty frequently.  I think it is the most effective for press teams.

And what about last season's Missouri team? Are you insinuating that there's no way the could have made a deep run in the NCAA tournament?

i think a reason that guards are so dominant as scorers in this game is because of the 3pt shot and the higher incidence of made 3's in this game. 

because it seems the % of makes in WIS is much higher than in real life it skews the value of a guard that can shoot the 3 vis a vis a big man who can score inside and might make a few free throws but can't shoot the 3.