Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/22/2017 11:24:00 PM (view original):
Colligan is a good rebounder (70 ATH 95 REB). HOdge is average (55 ATH 90 REB), Thompson will be in between as well (80 ATH 60 REB).

The team is good, not great which is my point. Teams aren't significantly better than they were!

Teams are better. In Rupp, in IBA D2, it's clear. I have been at Western New Mexico and Pfeiffer for over 10 seasons and you need more to win than before. I also presently changing my expectations by rising the talent so I keep competing.

Posted by snafu4u on 3/5/2017 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dadbod on 2/22/2017 8:24:00 PM (view original):
Can someone please post a monster D3 team filled with D1 players that creates this incredible in balance?

Is it that much worse than the old way? I am not seeing it....

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=3726

Elmhurst is higher rated than all but one DII School and about 65% (estimating) DI schools in that world.

Wow. Quite a team.

Posted by snafu4u on 3/5/2017 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dadbod on 2/22/2017 8:24:00 PM (view original):
Can someone please post a monster D3 team filled with D1 players that creates this incredible in balance?

Is it that much worse than the old way? I am not seeing it....

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=3726

Elmhurst is higher rated than all but one DII School and about 65% (estimating) DI schools in that world.

I agree with TJ. These teams we're seeing are excellent but not without their weaknesses. I could see Brandeis beating Elmhurst in their non-con if Brandeis played m2m. It's not all about overall rating and there's a reason d1schools aren't recruiting most of these players.

Posted by jaxorbetter on 3/5/2017 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by snafu4u on 3/5/2017 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dadbod on 2/22/2017 8:24:00 PM (view original):
Can someone please post a monster D3 team filled with D1 players that creates this incredible in balance?

Is it that much worse than the old way? I am not seeing it....

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=3726

Elmhurst is higher rated than all but one DII School and about 65% (estimating) DI schools in that world.

I agree with TJ. These teams we're seeing are excellent but not without their weaknesses. I could see Brandeis beating Elmhurst in their non-con if Brandeis played m2m. It's not all about overall rating and there's a reason d1schools aren't recruiting most of these players.

It is not just about the overall rating, it is where the ratings are. 60+ in Ath, Spd, and Def is better than the majority of DI schools. I am not saying every player on the roster is DI starting material, but a few of them are. Heck, a few of them would see PT coming off the bench for my Nova squad. I think that Elmhurst team could pull a 20 win season against a DI schedule in a low/mid conference.

I don't see Brandeis winning that game giving up 20 points in speed, especially at home.

You should have seen Dritchey's undefeated College of NJ team last year.

They better more quickly. Guys have higher starting ratings I notice.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/22/2017 11:24:00 PM (view original):
Colligan is a good rebounder (70 ATH 95 REB). HOdge is average (55 ATH 90 REB), Thompson will be in between as well (80 ATH 60 REB).

The team is good, not great which is my point. Teams aren't significantly better than they were!

I disagree with your assessment above. 70 Ath 95 reb is not just "good", it's elite at DIII. Hell that's good in DII. Hodge is average in DII, but that used to be a stud rebounder in DIII. My DIII champ teams had bigs that looked like Hodge.

The real issue here is a DIII A+ team should not be on the same level as a DII A+ team, or worse, a DI BCS team. There used to be 10-12 teams breaking 600, maybe 3-5 over 630 rating maybe? Tark has more than 25 over 600 right now. I don't think a lot of teams are significantly higher, but the average for DIII has risen significantly. I don't know if all those teams are actually better now, but the rich still get richer. This change has been just an artificial inflation. Teams have higher ratings, but in the end, the best coaches are still dominating the rest.

Recruit generation is the same. They get distributed differently. Move along, nothing to see here.

Why would Spud be censored. He gets angry but he doesn't get out of line.

when you are blessed with something like this you dont ask questions you just accept it and be happy

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=3773

It's a real good team cub. ONly weakness is rebounding.

PBAU in Phelan ended up winning the NC 32-3 #1 RPI which I think ends up just shy of the top 10 rpi list all time and #2 SOS of the 3 losses they were to all good teams and 2 of the losses he split the series 1-1 the other loss was cross divisional opponent that he didn't play again.

Team overall of 712, 2 players 800+ 4 more 700+ pretty sure the first team to hit 700 rating at D3. Has there been a D2 team yet to hit 700 I never played much D2 and havent checked any of the 3.0 worlds for D2 teams over 712.

Would be the highest rated D2 team overall still too.

No idea how Saner, Jones, and Armstrong made it to D3 Saner was D1 ranked and other two were probably D2 or unranked D1 obviously PBAU does have an advantage location wise and only 1 competent D2 coach in Florida(back to back D2 champs actually so I guess he didn't really need either of those 3 guys anyways)

Here is another insane D3 player too #54 SG out of Texas a bit surprising with blue spd, green defense+lp+per+bh+sta would've been a great D1 non major player

Otherwise nothing else too insane for D3 in Phelan maybe Cal Tech PF but he doesn't have any offense just insane ath/spd/reb I actually almost recruited him for my D1 non major team

Still love how our 2-4 favorite posters consider having the same elite top D1 teams win all the time the equivalent of Nazi germany, but are perfectly alright with a system that encourages the same coaches to win at D2 and especially D3.

I think that PBAU team is a little misleading, only. There are several players on that team with extremely high WE, DUR, and/or STA. Those guys are pretty good, but PBAU usually has great teams in every world given their geographical advantage. He's still signed 8 of his guys from FLA. Looking at his history there, you couldn't tell me with certainty when the game switched from 2.0 to 3.0. Great coaches are going to be great no matter what the conditions. They will adapt. Thinking that capping the talent will make it easier for new coaches to have success is a bit naïve. Irrevocable will dominate over the new guys no matter what his restrictions are.

Also, the learning curve is just steeper now if anything for new coaches. When I came in, I rushed out and signed guys with 1 WE thinking man, this guy's going to be a beast. I learned, took my lumps, and while I haven't won a NT I believe I've more than held my own. Why is it so hard to believe that new coaches today can't learn and adapt as well? Have we really gotten to a place in the entitled society where everyone expects, no demands, instant success? If the answer to that is yes, then it's an example of a society problem, not a game problem...

Oh boy

(don't worry Mike you can just skip this post since I know you wouldn'tbe able to read it let alone understand it, I'll just assume you have some rehashed response that involves something about but new coaches would take walkons since they would be recruiting from the same pool, because it totally happened all the time in 2.0)


10th in WE 16th in Dur 1st in Sta, but why shouldn't stamina be counted for overall it's a very important trait.

Well just consider it a start, did we expect everyone to magically figure out 3.0 in 1-2 seasons no, first off we wouldn't have seen an impact until at least a few seasons and classes gone through? If I remember correctly the first classes of 3.0 graduated last season. So this would be the 2nd senior class of 3.0 in phelan I might be a season off, but regardless the 2nd class of 3.0 and we are seeing a team with 700 overall(granted it doesn't impact the game at all but look at the ratings of the players themselves) that had 3 very strong D2 players or even a non major D1 players tbh.

Oh well new coaches are screwed either way so lets just keep them more screwed than they were or could be. It's like it's totally fine for D3 to be dominated by the same teams over and over, but dear god if someone has an A+ Kentucky or UCLA we must drag them from their castles they've built and burn them alive because it's not fair. There is a difference between great coaches being great and great coaches being dominant. In 2.0 it was extremely hard to be a very dominant coach there were maybe 5-10 coaches at most you could've called extremely dominant for D3 that literally did compete for a title every single season or 95% of the time. Back then you didn't have a big recruiting advantage, you had similar recruiting pools slightly better D2 players were available right away instead of being pulled down and some D2 players you could pull down instead of being rejected but nothing like letting D3 coaches actively and successfully recruit D2 D1 and D1 ranked players pretty easily. Some of the players I've brought in I never would've thought possible to potentially be D3 players and I don't think any are going to be even as good as the guys PBAU has in the 2nd class he brought in lol.

So now you are also saying the learning curve is steeper but we shouldn't care because its already such a disadvantage?

Where the hell am I demanding instant success? And anyways how is making the game easier for new coaches a bad thing if anything we might want new coaches to come in and enjoy the game you know with all the coaching number problems I would feel people should and would've been more willing to want new coaches to have things a bit easier not take longer, more complicated, and have a bigger wall to scale. 3.0 made D3 even harder for a new coach to come in and have success. 2.0 it was already ~4 seasons to be competitive and generally it was more like 6 seasons since most people didn't recruit well their first two seasons unless they had help. Now you add an extra season because they can't recruit right away because oh no can't let them make a mistake! Now you make it more complicated, D3 scouting is the hardest by far which makes some sense realistically, but its one of those things where its probably best to differ since it hurts the game, and now the D3 teams they are trying to compete with just became even stronger so now they have to bring in even better players to think about competing.

I think most people never saw what I have been arguing about and the few that did were turned off by my demeanor, but I am not trying to make the game easier for myself like it's clearly obvious certain people do. Maybe since I can't post from my own ID's but I make it clear, I'm currently arguing against my own success because it would make the game better. I'm one of those borderline tier 1 coaches that people are perfectly fine with being elite and crushing new coaches all the time at D3.

Now why is it okay for D3 to be so divided but D1 has to be an equal playing field because some people can't handle having to work hard to overcome the advantages teams and coaches built up?

Capping D3 is like capping the # of EE caliber players an D1 school can recruit, someone throws a hissy fit anytime an A+ school isn't automatically downgraded to an A prestige for being too good, but are perfectly fine with the same coaches being the same ones making all the deep runs and bringing in the best players at D3.

Why should D3 be harder than it was, why should D3 be more complicated than it was, why should D3 take longer until you bring your own team in?

Again for a game that struggles with population numbers why was the beginning division made those 3 ways in the update, and why are people perfectly fine letting the problems they have complete rage over at D1 be accepted in a similar fashion at D3?

I probably repeated myself a bunch since it's 2 am and also because I just don't know how anyone makes that argument while understanding the game besides the obvious of it impacting them and their D3 teams negatively.

How is the game stacked more for any other coach in D3? Are the experienced coaches at an advantage because their prestige is better? No, I'm pretty sure they've repeated over and over that prestige doesn't really matter at D3. Ok, so are the experienced coaches able to recruit better players than the new ones? Is there some sort of restrictions on the players that new coaches can recruit? No? Is recruiting at ANY level rocket science? Do you need a degree in advanced physics to figure out who to go after? Are the mentors no longer answering questions for new coaches who come into the game? NO???

And before you say anything more, I have said several times on these boards that I am in favor of capping the level that D3 coaches can go after. So don't lump me in with that statement. I'm just asking if everyone isn't recruiting under the same rules? If so, point out which ones apply to new coaches that don't to experienced ones, or vice versa? If not, don't sit on your pulpit pretending to be above the fray. Cap the recruits, don't cap the recruits. The point is, good coaches will be good no matter what.

Recruiting works on a sliding scale. Take off the top recruits, then the top coaches will just grab the next highest they can, forcing everyone below them down a level. Put another way, crap rolls down hill. So tell me how a cap magically fixes this paradigm? Again, I'm in favor of a cap, as it leads to an arms race that is more stressful than fun, but again don't act like a cap will bring parity to worlds. You said it yourself. You're a good coach. I've looked up to you in terms of your accomplishments. Are you more successful now at winning NT than you were before?

Look at D3 IBA, where I believe you're currently a coach. Show me the big bad wolf that's coming to murder your kids and do things with your wife? It's not there. No 700 plus rated teams. The highest I've found is a 647 that is in the conference I play in but his team doesn't have me shaking in my boots. I couldn't beat him this year, but that's because I missed on some recruits that class. He has a flawed team, it can be beaten.

Where are these new coaches who are railroading against the travesties flung at them by the experienced coaches? Do they not know where the forums are? Do they not get to comment for the first six months of opening their account? How can you say it's unfair to them if there isn't some sort of uprising happening that the rest of us don't know about? Show them to me, and I will concede the point.

The problems at D1 as I understood them were the top teams were gobbling up the top talent and the rest DIDN'T have a CHANCE for them. How is that the same as here, where everyone could get the talent at D3, just have to put in the work to find them and throw their hat into the ring?

Tell me, I'm listening...