Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/13/2010 7:28:00 PM (view original):
I dunno.  An all PG team you could pick fast athletes and run a fastbreak/press and hope that the turnover margin compensates for the lack of rebounding.  But a center at PG is going to get demolished.

While I agree that a PG team would probably be more successful than a C team, I believe rebounding is BY FAR the most important category after speed/ath... in D2 you could theoretically get 5 guys in the 90s in rebounding. How would that team fare if your C playing guard spot has high passing? Probably still poorly, but you would get a LOT of putbacks (if you could get the initial shot up!). A PG team could do what, a 50 reb rating at C and a 40 rebounding rating at PF and much worse other than that? 

I think it's a lot harder to be competitive with an all PG team or an all C team, too hard for the purposes of this exercise, imo.

aejones-- I'll do any of them.
dacj501-- All SGs
garmansouth-- All PFs

Posted by aejones on 8/13/2010 7:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/13/2010 7:28:00 PM (view original):
I dunno.  An all PG team you could pick fast athletes and run a fastbreak/press and hope that the turnover margin compensates for the lack of rebounding.  But a center at PG is going to get demolished.

While I agree that a PG team would probably be more successful than a C team, I believe rebounding is BY FAR the most important category after speed/ath... in D2 you could theoretically get 5 guys in the 90s in rebounding. How would that team fare if your C playing guard spot has high passing? Probably still poorly, but you would get a LOT of putbacks (if you could get the initial shot up!). A PG team could do what, a 50 reb rating at C and a 40 rebounding rating at PF and much worse other than that? 

I think it's a lot harder to be competitive with an all PG team or an all C team, too hard for the purposes of this exercise, imo.

DOn't disagree with anything you said, just think that you have a potential 'remedy'(At least a partial one) in the press to compensate a little in the case of the all PG team.  WHat woudl be the equivalent in a team full of centers?  Neither woudl be easy.  You woudl pretty much need to distribute rebounding all across the lineup and hope you could pick up some of the slack with heavy rebounding guards.

I have watched this thread with interest and some amusement, but I do believe such a premise could be interesting. I think I would stick with one position (PG, SG, SF, PF or C) of a team's choosing, and let as many teams as they like choose that position. Recruiting will still not be cut and dried, as teams would still have to find guys within that position to fill certain roles (a good BH center, a good REB PG).

I wouldn't necessarily force a team into a particular game play, as it forces the coach to devise a game plan for for his team's (and his opponent's) very odd strengths and weaknesses/ Decisions like playing an all-center team fast-paced against an all-PG team to maximize possessions could work or backfire. What is the best offense/defense for an all-center team to play? The possibilities are wide open.

Alternatively you could allow only recruiting from one state, or only players whose last name begins with the same letter. In this scenario, everyone has simply handicapped their team with poor players, and the team that wins could very well be the team that gets lucky in recruiting (for their letter or state) a couple of seasons in a row.

While I think playing against one another in conference will be loads of fun, the real challenge will be if you can create a team that can compete in the NT. In that case, a team made of all one position might indeed have a shot.

I would like to do all over-seas guys.  I won't recruit from Canada.

aejones-- I'll do any of them.
dacj501-- All SGs
garmansouth-- All PFs
tkimble-- International 

I would choose the all-PG team.

I'd be interested in the all-C team.  Can't 100% commit right now, but I'll know in the next few days.  Three questions: (1) who cares what we do in season 1 if we are moving to D2; (2)  what do we do with the current players (rescind, keep, etc.); and (3) is Phelan a two-a-day world?

isack, I would think the goal would be to field as competitive a team as possible in DIII to assure you move up to DII the next season. 

1.  The DIII season should be nothing more than a stepping stone and no rules should apply.  It's once you get to the DII conference that is decided upon is when the Center-only (for you) kicks in. 

2.  I would also suggest that existing players in DII will act as a transition period while we implement our specific strategies.  I guess coaches could choose to rescind schollies if they wish but could also choose to retain holdovers as a means of balancing out the classes.  I know I would not want to recruit 6-8 PGs my first DII season.
 
3.  I don't mind it being a 2-a-day world.  Actually, I think that would be better than a 1-a-day.  It would take us forever to completely get our strategies in motion otherwise.

Just my opinion.

Only division I see with ten slots open at d2 in Phelan is the South Atlantic.

We might not want 10.  There are 7 spots open in the amazing North American Conference

Posted by tkimble on 8/13/2010 11:53:00 PM (view original):
We might not want 10.  There are 7 spots open in the amazing North American Conference

North American is so spread out, it would be ideal.

Yeah but if there are people in the conference that are just playing to win with no limits then they obviously should wreck anyone with limits. So a conference with 5 teams in it would defeat the purpose of this.

We absolutely need to have at least 8 or 9 out of the 12 teams in a conference. It's possible we could convince some of the people already in the conference to do something at least similar to what we're doing, but truth be told, I could put together a team with limits and still have a shot against most random D2 coaches.

should we ask those folks that are there if they are interested in taking part?