I've been beaten by Vassar several times now, all the same way. Point Piper is the coach, and he finds one player, gives him 50% distributiion, and wins despite any double teaming efforts. He's found a flaw in the gameplay, I feel, and I think it diminishes the overall game. Yes, I guess I could do it to, but who wants to? Yes, I want to win, but I also want the game to continue to move toward a more and more grounded, realistic feeling. Losing that way is frustrating, and total bullshit in my opinion. If I'm off-base, I'll accept that. But it makes strategizing a joke, and I think hurts the game.

Bing does it as well, but with 2 players

lol you didn't see that one coming? Maybe you could have gameplanned against it. It was clearly obvious what his gameplan was going to be. If 1 player can dominate you like this maybe you need to take a good hard look at your own team because it doesn't work that way against good teams.

I love how easy it is to get an amazing prestige at d3 too.

I dont understand? so if he's scoring half the team's points but gets DT'd, then the team should automatically lose? I'm a huge proponent on improving gameplanning. As i think we're pretty much playing recruiting dynasty, but your argument doesnt hold water.

Say you have a guy that takes 25 shots per game.
If he shoots 48% he scores 24
If he shoots 40% he scores 20
If he shoots 32% he scores 16

So going from 48% to 32% is a drop in point production of 8 points. Eight seems like a lot, and it is. But what if he got an assist because of the DT? What if his team got an extra offensive rebound (or two) because of the DT?

There's a million other aspects of the game that effect the outcome other than a player scoring a bucket. To simply DT a 30ppg scorer and expect to win is lame

Um, you know whats more lame? Not researching first. DUDE, you play a press defense. You DT EVERYBODY. Its not like the player got any special attention from you defense. so there is absolutely no valid argument here.

Quote: Originally posted by cagefan on 9/27/2009I've been beaten by Vassar several times now, all the same way. Point Piper is the coach, and he finds one player, gives him 50% distributiion, and wins despite any double teaming efforts. He's found a flaw in the gameplay, I feel, and I think it diminishes the overall game. Yes, I guess I could do it to, but who wants to? Yes, I want to win, but I also want the game to continue to move toward a more and more grounded, realistic feeling. Losing that way is frustrating, and total bullshit in my opinion. If I'm off-base, I'll accept that. But it makes strategizing a joke, and I think hurts the game.

Instead of questioning the loss, question why you played a 0 when half his shots are 3s

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 9/27/2009I love how easy it is to get an amazing prestige at d3 too

So having three straight top-8 RPIs shouldn't get you an "A"?

I agree though, that was poor gameplanning. That just doesn't happen against very often against the best coaches in the game.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 9/27/2009

It's not "very off base" and I'm not basing it only on RPI.

I understand the importance of deep runs into the postseason. But a deep tourney run is just a hot streak. It could be as simple as a good string of matchups.

In five years, he had a 114-33 record, 70-10 conference record, five NT appearances, a 9-5 record in the NT, two sweet sixteens and a final four, three times finishing in the top ten RPI, and three CT championships.

Is it the best resume? Of course not, but it's probably one of the top 10-15 five year spans in the world over that five year period.

Sure, there are issues with prestige, but I don't really don't think it's a huge issue. But I think you could probably find better examples and I don't think it's specific to DIII.

Agree completely

polo is right, you can't select anyone specific to double team when running a fcp defense.

tmac's right -- if you'd played a +2 you almost certainly would've won.

However, I feel that you're also right -- this is a really gimmicky strategy that cheapens the game and simply shouldn't be able to work on a night-in, night-out basis, but apparently has been given his A+ prestige.

And lastly, I'm right when I say ... why do you keep scheduling him?

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.