of my 8 elite d1 teams, I have 5 that are 12 man rosters, 2 that are 11, and 1 that is 10.  I do calculations for last 7 minutes off and on for several of my teams, I have found playing deep teams helps & I like playing deep teams, so this change should be one I oppose - I simply do not - I think it is nice to have alternate ways of winning - strictly opinion, I have seen no data that suggests 8 man rotations are gerically superior to 10 man or 11 man for top notch teams, but if there examples where the use of 8 is superior, I would applaud the change, not resist it.

Again, just one man's opinion.

one more thing, I took a random conference I was in, world 2 big east, we happen to have 9 ranked teams, 6 teams have 12 scholy players, 5 have 11, and 1 has 10, I guess we didn't get the memo about playing with 8 man teams.

just for kicks and giggles, I clicked on user Girt,m he plays a ten man rotation with one team, and plays with a 12 man team with the other one, 10 of whom play as regulars, by the way, the two guys he doesn't play are near 800 level guys, not exactly a 8 man team by any means

It can definitely help non-elite teams as well.  I completely butchered recruiting in Crum (GW, B prestige A-10 school) last season and signed nobody.  In years past, 4 walkons would be a killer.  I've been running an 8-man rotation and have worked our way to a 19-5 record (admittedly an easy schedule has helped too) and an RPI that will have me in the PI at least.  

It may just delay the inevitable huge down season, until next season when I'll have 8 openings, but it won't force me into a horrible year which will kill my prestige, before having to fill 8 openings (and then have another down season, etc).

OR, are you really offering these as relevant examples? The change was just four weeks ago, there's barely been any recruiting since then.

Also, I think it goes way beyond simply taking walk-ons. You may have 10/11/12 guys on your team, but you can now get away with playing your starters for bigger minutes, greatly reducing the amount that you need to play your bench guys.

And though it's besides the point, I don't play anywhere close to a 12-man rotation with either team, or any team I've ever had. I assume you're talking about UNC, and I've basically been playing seven guys significantly, another about 15 mpg and two more around 8-10.

Posted by acn24 on 3/8/2011 12:26:00 PM (view original):
It can definitely help non-elite teams as well.  I completely butchered recruiting in Crum (GW, B prestige A-10 school) last season and signed nobody.  In years past, 4 walkons would be a killer.  I've been running an 8-man rotation and have worked our way to a 19-5 record (admittedly an easy schedule has helped too) and an RPI that will have me in the PI at least.  

It may just delay the inevitable huge down season, until next season when I'll have 8 openings, but it won't force me into a horrible year which will kill my prestige, before having to fill 8 openings (and then have another down season, etc).

I can see that side of it, too. I guess I tend to think of it in more of a big-picture sense, i.e. will it help or hurt the big boys, and will it help or hurt the non-BCS be competitive nationally? But sure, it can help any team that whiffs in recruiting.

Posted by girt25 on 3/8/2011 12:37:00 PM (view original):
OR, are you really offering these as relevant examples? The change was just four weeks ago, there's barely been any recruiting since then.

Also, I think it goes way beyond simply taking walk-ons. You may have 10/11/12 guys on your team, but you can now get away with playing your starters for bigger minutes, greatly reducing the amount that you need to play your bench guys.

And though it's besides the point, I don't play anywhere close to a 12-man rotation with either team, or any team I've ever had. I assume you're talking about UNC, and I've basically been playing seven guys significantly, another about 15 mpg and two more around 8-10.

Yes I am.  I invite anyone with ?'s to review girt's teams.

interesting, you are saying there is not enough time to evaluate, yet you have made blanket assertions about the 2/3 change as if they are fact - just interesting is all - I simply have said I sort of like the changes - I like that the game has the option of playing less deep a roster - I like it is all.

finally, the most any of your unc guys are playing is 24 minutes, hardly any different that one of my uconn teams from 35 seasons ago in tark, hardly a thing to panic about - is it - really - you might even be proved right about this eventually - but your posts are way overboard, an overreation, we don't know yet

Here's my S16 from a couple nights ago:

STARTERS MIN FGM-A FGM3-A FTM-A OFF REB AST TO STL BLK PF PTS
Thomas Sigler, c 23 1-2 0-0 3-4 0 2 1 3 2 2 3 5
Anthony Winburn, pf 31 0-2 0-0 2-2 4 8 0 2 0 0 2 2
Seth Aguero, sf 30 4-7 0-1 3-5 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 11
Ruben Morgan, pg 32 3-6 1-1 2-2 2 7 4 2 0 0 3 9
Edward Aldrich, sg 26 4-8 1-1 2-3 0 2 2 2 1 0 2 11
BENCH MIN FGM-A FGM3-A FTM-A OFF REB AST TO STL BLK PF PTS
Jacob McCrea, c 20 4-8 0-0 2-4 0 1 0 4 0 0 2 10
David Parkinson, sg 18 2-3 1-2 0-0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5
Gary Rogers, sf 11 0-0 0-0 0-1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
John Brooks, pf 5 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bryan Nowell, sf 4 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Does that look like a 12-man rotation to you? Lol. For the record, that's a sf w. 72 or 73 sta set to fairly fresh playing 30 minutes. He might've played 23-24 before the change. I actually would've loved to have used my bench more and couldn't, even with all of my starters set to fairly fresh. I had to set Mcrea and Parkinson to getting tired just to get them half decent court time behind my starters.

But of course we're all dealing with our opinions here, and you're right, time will tell. My opinion is that this change helps the big boys most of all.

Posted by girt25 on 3/8/2011 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 3/8/2011 12:26:00 PM (view original):
It can definitely help non-elite teams as well.  I completely butchered recruiting in Crum (GW, B prestige A-10 school) last season and signed nobody.  In years past, 4 walkons would be a killer.  I've been running an 8-man rotation and have worked our way to a 19-5 record (admittedly an easy schedule has helped too) and an RPI that will have me in the PI at least.  

It may just delay the inevitable huge down season, until next season when I'll have 8 openings, but it won't force me into a horrible year which will kill my prestige, before having to fill 8 openings (and then have another down season, etc).

I can see that side of it, too. I guess I tend to think of it in more of a big-picture sense, i.e. will it help or hurt the big boys, and will it help or hurt the non-BCS be competitive nationally? But sure, it can help any team that whiffs in recruiting.

But ultimately, I don't think it has a tremendous impact on whether or not non-BCS schools can be competitive nationally.  Recruit generation already saw to it that a B prestige school in a non-BCS conference with 5 humans isn't going to compete nationally. 

But being able to play an 8-man rotation, this team can still lose in the 1st round of the NT (or win a few PI games), which was it's ceiling anyway. 

The issue is HD continues to pick and choose when it wants to be realistic. You want realism for fatigue? Then lets let fatigue/playing time issues carry over from game to game thropughout the season.

You want to play 40 mins a game? Fine, then by the post season you may end up more banged up and tired than someone playing 20 MPG the entire year. But HD resets fatigue every game. I dont really want that, but I want to illustrate that you can't always cite something as good because it's more realistic when there are a handfull of other related aspects that are still NOT realistic.

Posted by mullycj on 3/10/2011 8:18:00 AM (view original):
The issue is HD continues to pick and choose when it wants to be realistic. You want realism for fatigue? Then lets let fatigue/playing time issues carry over from game to game thropughout the season.

You want to play 40 mins a game? Fine, then by the post season you may end up more banged up and tired than someone playing 20 MPG the entire year. But HD resets fatigue every game. I dont really want that, but I want to illustrate that you can't always cite something as good because it's more realistic when there are a handfull of other related aspects that are still NOT realistic.

mully - tht would be another great idea - I guess I do want realism more than you do

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Another problem I have with the new fatigue: It makes it very hard to get young player and/or high-quality bench players much time. Next season I'll have two very strong soph guards that I'd love to get a good amount of PT, but because they're behind two seniors, in the new system they'll both play about 10 mpg unless it's a blowout.

That's stupid, and it prevents you from leveraging quality depth.

girt  -sorry - I love the fact you have a couple of near 800 or 850 guys ready to leave you - happens all the time in real life - oops - there I go again - it simply seems slightly disingenuous  that a coach with a team that has 12 guys over 800 is complaining about losing guys because his starters are getting too many minutes, while most coaches can't even get 1 or 2 guys - I thought you didn't like it because it gave you too much of an advantage?

Posted by oldresorter on 3/10/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 3/10/2011 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Another problem I have with the new fatigue: It makes it very hard to get young player and/or high-quality bench players much time. Next season I'll have two very strong soph guards that I'd love to get a good amount of PT, but because they're behind two seniors, in the new system they'll both play about 10 mpg unless it's a blowout.

That's stupid, and it prevents you from leveraging quality depth.

girt  -sorry - I love the fact you have a couple of near 800 or 850 guys ready to leave you - happens all the time in real life - oops - there I go again - it simply seems slightly disingenuous  that a coach with a team that has 12 guys over 800 is complaining about losing guys because his starters are getting too many minutes, while most coaches can't even get 1 or 2 guys - I thought you didn't like it because it gave you too much of an advantage?

Why not use target minutes if you feel like your starting guards are getting too much PT even set at fairly fresh? Personally, I'm fine with my starting players playing 30mpg if they are fresh the entire game. Simply means my best players are on the court longer at 100% strength and my talent advantage (if I have one) will weigh more and allow me to win more games.