I see how setting the goal is useful, but all this focus on team-average ratings is just weird.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 8/15/2013 3:49:00 PM (view original):
OP wrote "I think I've finally done it. I think I've finally built a team that can contend," which I take to mean contend for a title. 

thats a good point, i took it the same way - but we both know there are echelons of difference between "finally can contend for a title" and "heavy favorite". well, at least to me i consider them different levels with one between, title favorite. i think there is a level above heavy favorite, too. but regardless of how you define those levels - a team finally getting to the point of competing for a title, which i read roughly #5 in the country, doesn't need to be 70/60/70, definitely not... and i think thats where the push back comes from. others are looking at the top 5-10 teams in their world and NOT seeing those figures - because thats NOT the level it takes to compete for a title. its not even the level required to be a title favorite - probably around heavy title favorite, you are looking at those figures or at least very close, and up.

Posted by killbatman on 8/15/2013 3:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/15/2013 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 8/15/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
I hit 65/60/60 a couple of times in D3. 70/60/70 is a goal that you should aim for in D2 to be the heavy favorite for the NC. No one said it's easy because if it is, then 70/60/70 isn't going to be enough for you to be the heavy favorite. 

i can pretty much agree with this - its a good goal if you are trying to be a HEAVY FAVORITE for the title. thats not really a normal goal though - which is how it seems this was presented, which to me, caused the confusion/disagreement. its not really clear what the goal is for when expressed - is this to make the NT? win your first title? be an average #1 in the country team? or to enter the echelons above the std #1 team? those are all very different... im not sure what the "default" is, but im pretty sure its not to be a heavy favorite to win the NT - thats what im getting at. i agree its a good goal for that purpose but that not relevant to most people - where as a lot of people at least have their best team getting up there in the competing for a deep NT run or something, which seems to be often the "default" levels people are expressing when stating things like this. good to great, but not exceptionally good. anyway like i said first and foremost i think its a context/experience gap here, not so much that people actually disagree as strongly as it seems to come across.

Agree and it would be better if we all articulated those different standards instead of giving a "one size fits all" type response.  It might be discouraging to a really new coach to see a single "standard" like 70/70 that seems impossibly out of reach.  On the other hand, it's not good advice to tell a coach who makes the NT regularly and wants to take it to the next level that 55/55 (or whatever we think the avg D2 NT team is) is a good standard to go by.

But I definitely think it's better for newer coaches to hear that things like 70/70 can be done.  It amazes me how dismissive people were about that. 

i agree, its definitely good for people to know what could be done and to have these high water marks. it was incredibly motivating for me, knowing the game was so concrete that a guy like rails could win 8 titles in 9 years. and i totally agree, not a good idea to give people low figures and mislead, im not for sugar coating or giving prizes down to 10th in a 20 man competition...

but i think we are not that far apart - we in the collective sense - which was basically the point of my first post. context is everything. hopefully most coaches are aware you and tianyi are double digit title winners (or at least close if not quite there), and that your standards for your teams should be viewed more as high water marks than short or medium term goals, at least until they are starting to get up there in the elite coaching circle. but i do think lots of forum users are more casual, at least on the forum side (even if really into the coaching side), and people are easily mislead into doing things like taking a statement out of context and therefore using it the wrong way themselves (like trying to hit those marks as a means of making the NT regularly - thats crazy - but coaches will prioritize the wrong way there if they dont realize the greater context here). i guess after years of being one of the heaviest posters, and having so much of what ive said unintentionally taken out of context, ive gotten a little overly cautious about these things :)

Perhaps I worded it wrong, I simply meant being capable of making a deep run into the postseason- E8 or on. I don't necessarily expect a title, but I was wondering just how good people thought this team could be.

Posted by caesari on 8/16/2013 10:07:00 AM (view original):
Perhaps I worded it wrong, I simply meant being capable of making a deep run into the postseason- E8 or on. I don't necessarily expect a title, but I was wondering just how good people thought this team could be.

Tough to say how good they'll look by NT time, without knowing potential or having any improvement patterns to look at.  But my reaction looking at the team is they'd be a heavy title favorite as a D3 squad and probably about S16/E8 level as a D2 squad.  JMO.

Posted by mduncanhogs on 8/15/2013 4:44:00 PM (view original):
I've been to 4 straight Final Fours in D2 Iba, and while I haven't managed to win a title yet, I at least know a thing or 2 about making deep D2 runs.  Those 4 teams averages in athleticism, speed and def were (from most recent backwards): 66/55/68, 64/55/67 (this one made the title game), 64/60/65 and 62/57/61.  To me, 65/55/65 is a reasonably attainable goal and you will definitely have a title quality team if you can get to that as long as you aren't ignoring other areas.  This season after 17 games I'm at 63/54/62 and I should pick up about 2 points in each of them by the tournament.  I always try to get to 65/65 in atheleticism/defense, and I try to have guards and SFs with speed.

In D2 Iba right now there are 5 teams at 65/65 and a few more that are likely to get there by the end of the season, so that alone won't get it done.  3 of those 5 are at 65/55/65.  Of those 3, 1 is a poor rebounding team with just 1 player over 80 in LP and one over 80 in PE (he is at 94) be that is still a good team.  The other 2 look like legit title contenders as they can also score and rebound.  One of them is at 80 in stamina, which I contend is the most underrated attribute in all of HD.  Without good stamina, your good players can become average players quickly.

Yeah, your St. Mary;s squads are a good example of wellbuilt teams that also have good core ratings, not just ATH and DEF.

My Longwood team that won the title in Iba last season was 70/50/75 or something like that, mduncan. However, I think we had the highest def/ath combo in all of DII, and that's the best I've ever done there. Also, our cores were kind of low,  and we lost ten games in the regular season...and kind of got on a lucky streak to win the title. I still didn't think we were the best team out there. 

Caesari, If your ATH/DEF are in the mid 60's, and SPD is in the mid 50's, it's a good shot that your team will seriously contend. Any of those in the 70's is elite, and sometimes a season will go by where nobody hits the 70ATH / 70DEF mark in DII. I think your Shepard team is very good but not great. Sweet 16 is a solid goal for your squad. You don't have elite perimeter/low post scoring, though your ATH/DEF will be pretty solid. That's still a strong team, and you should get a solid prestige bump after a good season. You're on the right track. 

Thanks for the feedback guys. I really do appreciate it.