I've seen teams running it. Just have to have really good stamina and IQ's.

6/7/2010 11:41 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 6/07/2010
And as long as you use the term "Blindly defend' for anyone who doesn't agree with you in any way on anything. . .



I dont know where I ever said this...there are those that blindly defend (see some of the insane explanations in this thread and others) and there are those that provide points that have a basis in something tangible which I might not agree with said explanation of conclusion of the breakdown of the data. Learn the difference chief.
6/7/2010 12:07 PM
Quote: Originally posted by mbalding on 6/06/2010My Rutgers team is not great, but a legitimate top 20 team, and at home this year I have the following wins.  86-38 over RPI 13 Georgetown61-29 over RPI 4 Pitt83-33 over RPI 22 UCONNIm sorry, but anyone who thinks that  that these type of games should happen is crazy.
I looked at Georgetown, here is what I saw compared to Rutgers:

Georgetown:
C - SPD 47 (-16), STA 83, DIQ: B- ... Fouled Out
SG2 - SPD 71 (-27), DIQ: B ... Fouled Out
SF - SPD 67 (-26), DIQ: B-

(The minus numbers are a comparison to the guys at the same position on the other team)

Georgetown has 9 points less average SPD, 4 points less average ATH ... 3 bigs with less than 50 SPD, both SF less than 70 SPD. 7 players on the team have speed < 80, 5 have speed < 70.

Georgetown is running full court press.

I will continue looking at the other games if necessary.
6/7/2010 12:25 PM
hughes, if you think you can justify an 86-38 game between those two teams (or an 83-33 game vs. OR's UConn squad, etc.) by cherry-picking a couple of numbers ... wow.

You have gained the reputation as being Apologist #1, and it is well-deserved. I agree that some of the criticisms may be off base, but many of them appear to have legitimacy and in fact are quite worrisome. For you to start defending these kinds of results just kinds of ruins any credibility you had .

6/7/2010 12:26 PM
I could see Rutgers winning those three games, no question. But those margins of victory are, well, absurd.
6/7/2010 12:29 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 6/07/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 6/07/2010

And as long as you use the term "Blindly defend' for anyone who doesn't agree with you in any way on anything. . .



I dont know where I ever said this...there are those that blindly defend (see some of the insane explanations in this thread and others) and there are those that provide points that have a basis in something tangible which I might not agree with said explanation of conclusion of the breakdown of the data. Learn the difference chief
Let me know when you actually do that . . .

If you want to call the explainations 'Insane' then I have absolutely no compunctions about calling what you do 'Ranting'. . .

Oldresorter, as an example, isn't ranting. . .

And maybe he has somewhere, but I don't see him calling people 'blind defenders' or 'insane'. . .
6/7/2010 12:30 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By hughesjr on 6/07/2010
Quote: Originally posted by mbalding on 6/06/2010
My Rutgers team is not great, but a legitimate top 20 team, and at home this year I have the following wins.

86-38 over RPI 13 Georgetown

61-29 over RPI 4 Pitt

83-33 over RPI 22 UCONN

Im sorry, but anyone who thinks that that these type of games should happen is crazy.
I looked at Georgetown, here is what I saw compared to Rutgers:

Georgetown:
C - SPD 47 (-16), STA 83, DIQ: B- ... Fouled Out
SG2 - SPD 71 (-27), DIQ: B ... Fouled Out
SF - SPD 67 (-26), DIQ: B-

(The minus numbers are a comparison to the guys at the same position on the other team)

Georgetown has 9 points less average SPD, 4 points less average ATH ... 3 bigs with less than 50 SPD, both SF less than 70 SPD. 7 players on the team have speed < 80, 5 have speed < 70.

Georgetown is running full court press.

I will continue looking at the other games if necessary
Again, not saying I should have won as Rutgers is a very good team. Just looking at the results (and not just that game but the others I mentioned) just seem very strange. If he would have won by 10 points, I could live with that. Being at home and having some one-on-one advantages. But, not the result we got. Will be interesting in round 2 of some of these games to see what changes.
6/7/2010 12:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 6/07/2010hughes, if you think you can justify an 86-38 game between those two teams ...
So, you can just plug any players into FCP ... why not just flip a coin for the winner then?

The margin might be bigger than it should be.
6/7/2010 12:30 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By hughesjr on 6/07/2010
Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 6/07/2010 hughes, if you think you can justify an 86-38 game between those two teams ...
So, you can just plug any players into FCP ... why not just flip a coin for the winner then?

The margin might be bigger than it should be


No, he's not plugging in just any players. He's got elite-caliber players. He's also got a phenomenally good passing team that got diced by a fcp.

But a 50-pt margin is just absurd.
6/7/2010 12:32 PM
Sully, not saying Georgetown is a bad team ... they are a very good team. They just do not have the SPEED required to run the FCP (IMO).

That does not make them a bad team, it just means they can't run with some teams.

6/7/2010 12:35 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By hughesjr on 6/07/2010
Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 6/07/2010 hughes, if you think you can justify an 86-38 game between those two teams ...
So, you can just plug any players into FCP ... why not just flip a coin for the winner then?

The margin might be bigger than it should be


Are you just ignoring the athleticism? I mean, speed is great but we are also very athletic. Our guards, besides the backup SG, all have great speed. The FCP was obviously tweaked and we are working around that. Still, to say that we are just throwing players into a FCP is insane.
6/7/2010 12:36 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By hughesjr on 6/07/2010Sully, not saying Georgetown is a bad team ... they are a very good team. They just do not have the SPEED required to run the FCP (IMO).

That does not make them a bad team, it just means they can't run with some teams.

Speed should not be the only thing needed for the FCP. We are extremely athletic and the guards have great speed. The C should be in the back and not need to be as fast. The SF, whatever...he is not worth 50 points!
6/7/2010 12:37 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By hughesjr on 6/07/2010Sully, not saying Georgetown is a bad team ... they are a very good team. They just do not have the SPEED required to run the FCP (IMO).

That does not make them a bad team, it just means they can't run with some teams.

And, due to the unexpected changes to FCP, we are moving away from it. Not that the changes are bad, just would have been nice to know that a defense is changing as much as it did.
6/7/2010 12:38 PM
For a point of comparison, I just looked at every Big Ten regular season game from last season:

-There were a grand total of 11 games with a final margin of more than 20 pts.

-There was a grand total of exactly one game with a final margin of more than 30 pts (35, Minny vs. Iowa).

-There was a grand total of exactly one game between NT teams with a final margin of more than 20 pts (22, UW beating OSU w. out Evan Turner).

hughes, with that perspective, take a look at those results for Rutgers where NT teams played each other and tell me how realistic you think they are.

6/7/2010 12:40 PM
PS - ACC-Allen is arguably the most ruthlessly strong and competitive league in HD. 8 of the first 11 conference games under the new engine have been decided by 20 pts or more -- almost as many as the real-life Big Ten had in an entire season.
6/7/2010 12:43 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7...9 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.