Just wanted to know if anyone has tried this or if it could be effective. I've considered having an all defensive starting team, keep them on fairly fresh and have top notch scorers behind them.

The theory is we hold down the opposing teams best scorers because most usually have their best players starting. Then my scorers would come in against either their tired starters or against the not as good backups. Also since their backups likely are not as good as their starters in scoring, having your own offensive guys with less defense would not hurt as much.

The idea would be to maximize scoring when your best offensive players are in and minimize the opposing teams best offensive guys.

Any thoughts

you should just try it and not post it on here...if it works you'll have copy-cats stealing your idea. if it doesn't, you switch gears and post about how you tried it...just a throught.

All that said, I like the idea.

I'd rather try to get as many players as possible who can go both ways...  That said, depending on offensive and defensive sets I generally prefer to have the stronger defender start and the stronger scorer come off the bench more often than not if I have to choose.  But if you don't have at least 3 solid scorers in your starting group in any offensive set you're asking to lose.  At the end of the day you need to at least play close to even with the starters on the floor if you want to win consistently.  The best teams WILL score, no matter how good your defense is, and if you don't have some offense to keep up with them they'll run you off the floor and nothing your bench does is going to cover for it.

The biggest drawback I see would be in close late-game situations. The computer AI "assumes" you want your starters on the floor (at least from my experience this seems to be the case...), so your defense team would be out there when you would perhaps rather have your scoring lineup.

I've played with this sort of strategy at times in D3, originally as a desperation measure against teams clearly superior to mine and later as a situational sort of thing (if the team I'm facing has an outstanding defensive point/shooting guard, but no depth at the position...I'll play the defense in the hope of racking up fouls and getting more minutes for my scorer vs. the inferior backup). My gut says its a strategy that works best at D3 where the "normal" spread between players can be a lot broader than at D2 or D1, but that's just me...

Posted by poncho0091 on 7/6/2011 3:17:00 PM (view original):
Just wanted to know if anyone has tried this or if it could be effective. I've considered having an all defensive starting team, keep them on fairly fresh and have top notch scorers behind them.

The theory is we hold down the opposing teams best scorers because most usually have their best players starting. Then my scorers would come in against either their tired starters or against the not as good backups. Also since their backups likely are not as good as their starters in scoring, having your own offensive guys with less defense would not hurt as much.

The idea would be to maximize scoring when your best offensive players are in and minimize the opposing teams best offensive guys.

Any thoughts

It sounds nice in theory. Don't know how it would hold up against the elite teams. I can say that I have found having an elite scorer coming off the bench can be a nice weapon.

i would look to the law of diminishing returns... having a 4th and 5th scorer on the bench is largely a waste. and not having a 1st or 2nd on your starting lineup is a dramatic disadvantage over those who do. i just don't think that can be compensated for with the mismatch aspect of the whole thing.

not that its a bad idea - its a great idea when applied on a more limited scope, i.e. for 1-2 positions.

I feel like the best defensive players are probably good scorers too though.

DEF isn't the only factor in defense skill, spd and ath matter too. If you have a player with high spd and ath then there is not much to stop him from being a good scorer as well. He might not be your best offensie weapon if he has no LP or PER skills, but still should be good.

For example a big man in D2 with Ath in the 70s spd in the 40s is probably still going to put up a lot of points even if his LP is like 30

Thanks for the feedback guys. It was really just a thought, something I may try in the future. I did have reservations about posting it here, but just wanted to see if anyone else had ever tried it.

billyho, As far as the elite teams, I also considered that and yes they would pose a problem because of their depth usually.

gillispie and rednu, you might have it best with the idea to try it at one to 2 positions or use it for situations

rednu, also, you are generally correct on the cpu wants your starter in, but I had multiple situations this past season where my best player/scorer/starter was taken out of the game for the last 6 minutes of the game although he was not very tired and his backup was on fairly fresh. In those games i lost by 2-5 points on scores that came in the last 30 seconds making me think if my damn scorer was in I would have own. My starter does not have bad stamina.

also gillespie, you are right in the sense of diminishing returns depending on the minutes your guys are getting, but in my case the starters with only one guy behind them usually play near the same minutes unless there is a major stamina difference.

dashdebater, I agree with you, but I tend to have trouble with that. I'm in a pretty tough conference with teams that have a pretty significant prestige advantage on me as well as more money since they are always in the NT and usually getting relatively far in.

mjp8, this is also true and maybe i should recruit more athleticism to my team. I have guys in the 90's in perimeter and 80's -90's LP, but the other teams usually score just as well with worse scorers because my defense and athleticism is a bit lower than it should be

The other guys in your conference don't have more money.  Tournament winnings are divided evenly amongst all conference members.

I've always been under the idea that tourney winnings were earned for the conference based on a teams progression in the tourney, but that the team itself got more from it. Nice news to know lol. Was there a change at some point or was it always this way?

Posted by poncho0091 on 7/9/2011 1:48:00 AM (view original):
I've always been under the idea that tourney winnings were earned for the conference based on a teams progression in the tourney, but that the team itself got more from it. Nice news to know lol. Was there a change at some point or was it always this way?

The Player Guide indicates that the money is divided among the conference.  I think you're confusing HD with reality, where the school gets half and the other half goes into the conference kitty for distribution.

its possible lol.

Do keep in mind Ethan the players guide has been updated since FSS was brought in. That's why I asked if there were any changes.

Get the best ath/def/reb team in the country and win away...........