Mully has mentioned numerous times, and I agree, that the biggest game to game problem with the new engine is shooting %'s being too high overall.  Notably 3 pt shooting % of players with low ratings in PER and/or ATH. 

Has anyone had success playing zone in the new engine without having significant advantages in talent?

How have you adjusted your zones at all given the 3 pointer is going in so much more from weaker players?

Playing a 3-2 worked for me.  I started out playing 2-3 and was 3-3.  Then I switched to 3-2 zone and went something like 25-2 and I had about 10 wins over top 50 RPI teams, but that was D3 so I don't know how it would work at D1.

I abandoned the zone because of the high FG%.  I think rebounding is stronger with 3-2 in the new engine than with the old, and that helps.  I looked at several of the teams winning with zones in D2 Phelan and found that all of them had worse defensive efficiency (points given up per possession) than similar-RPI M2M/Press teams, and their winning records were more because of their stellar offenses.  I switched to M2M very late and immediately saw my rebounding percentages jump, along with turnovers forced, even with the lower IQs.  Some of that was SOS effects but not all.  
Criticize me what you will-- I just think the zone was made too weak, especially if you don't have very high IQs.

mldynasty just won the national championship in Tark D2 running a zone defense

I play zone with all my teams now. I've done well with it, no titles but I don't think it hurts me. The fact that it's the least taxing defense it helps you on offense because your best scorers can play more minutes while being fresh. However if you do have poor defenders they will commit a lot of fouls just like in any other D. On my Cal Santa Cruz through 19 games playing the 23rd toughest schedule I give up 41.8% from the field and 32.4 from 3 playing a 2-3. With my Bryant team playing the 2nd toughest schedule I gave up 43.8% shooting from the field and 30.1% from 3 playing 3-2 which actually led the nation.

I've run a 3-2/2-3 zone press hybrid at D3 the last two seasons and made the NT second round each time. The decision to run 3-2 vs. 2-3 depends on the rebounding and personnel of my opponent. But its held my opponents to 31.7 and 30.8 percent 3-pt. shooting in two seasons vs. the new engine. 

Posted by kmasonbx on 9/25/2010 3:04:00 PM (view original):
I play zone with all my teams now. I've done well with it, no titles but I don't think it hurts me. The fact that it's the least taxing defense it helps you on offense because your best scorers can play more minutes while being fresh. However if you do have poor defenders they will commit a lot of fouls just like in any other D. On my Cal Santa Cruz through 19 games playing the 23rd toughest schedule I give up 41.8% from the field and 32.4 from 3 playing a 2-3. With my Bryant team playing the 2nd toughest schedule I gave up 43.8% shooting from the field and 30.1% from 3 playing 3-2 which actually led the nation.

How +/- do you generally play?

Posted by kmasonbx on 9/25/2010 3:04:00 PM (view original):
I play zone with all my teams now. I've done well with it, no titles but I don't think it hurts me. The fact that it's the least taxing defense it helps you on offense because your best scorers can play more minutes while being fresh. However if you do have poor defenders they will commit a lot of fouls just like in any other D. On my Cal Santa Cruz through 19 games playing the 23rd toughest schedule I give up 41.8% from the field and 32.4 from 3 playing a 2-3. With my Bryant team playing the 2nd toughest schedule I gave up 43.8% shooting from the field and 30.1% from 3 playing 3-2 which actually led the nation.

You played a 3-2 every game?

Here's the opponent  fg% for my currently running D1 teams:
FG%    3FG%
44        33  (edit) oops, this team is still running man while learning zone. Sorry!
46        29  runs 3-2
41        29  runs 3-2
42        34  runs 2-3

Concerning their record a couple of these teams are ranked. One is rank(255rpi). And the one that is average is the only one not to have 4 years yet practicing zone IQ.

I choose 3-2 or 2-3 at the start of the season depending on my roster talent. If my guards are weak on defence then I'll go 3-2 to protect the perimeter. Or if I have weak interior defense then I'll run a 2-3 and clog it up under the basket. I do scout my opponent if it's a critical game (or a tourney game) and will change to the other zone depending if he tosses up a lot of 3's or pounds it inside a disproportionate amount.  

I NEVER (hardly ever) do +/-. That's what I use the 3-2/2-3 for. Also, I recruit for DEF just as much as I do for man defense. Ok, if an interior player has 80+ BLK and high potential then I'll let DEF slide, maybe. BLK & REB (&DEF) are critical for the big'uns.  

I guess what I'm trying to say is zone is a viable defense but you have to recruit for it 99% as much as press or man. But it does allow you to recruit that #2 ranked SG with a 15DEF (low potential) that comes around every 20 years. Oh. And kmasonbx is hair on fire accurate with the stamina issue. Perhaps the greatest benefit of running zone is how much it helps the offense.

Grant - it varies game to game, with Cal Santa Cruz I try to stay 2-3 but if a team shoots well like 38+% and takes over 20 3s a game I will play 3-2 and go +2 or +3, however if they just take a lot but dont shoot a very good % I will stick 2-3 and depending how poorly they shoot I will go anywhere from -1 to +1. Now if they don't shoot many 3s and/or shoot them very poorly I'll go -2 or less.

girt - With my Bryant team yes I went 3-2 every game except 1 and didn't like the outcome so went back to 3-2. The main reason I did it was because I had a beast rebounding C 88ath/99reb and my PG had 40reb but was also a very weak defender in the low 20s, I thought I could better hide him by having him being 1 of the 3 in the 3-2 zone rather than have him being 1 of the 2 in a 2-3. Not sure how much of a difference it made as he did run into foul trouble a few times this season but in theory it should have limited his foul trouble.

After 22 games in Allen D3, I've been having very good success with the 2-3 zone (+2).  Against the #7 SOS, my FG% is ranked #2 overall holding opponents to 39.5% from the field and also #2 overall in FG3% at 29.4%.  The low field goal percentages are in part due averaging 5.4 blocks a game that is #9 nationally.

And this is despite the fact that my team is not overly talented.  My speed/athleticism is nothing special for a top team.  I do have good defensive ratings but the block ratings are just so-so.  And my team also has quite poor IQ (my team is young, has bad WE, and we're transitioning from a combo to straight zone).  And I don't have a team of 90+ stamina that might help explain things.

I'm not having terrific rebounding success, but I'm holding my own.  I'm +3.3 on the boards for the season which is pretty middle of the road but not terrible.

And the zone appears to be greatly helping in the foul game.  I'm #4 nationally in foul margin, fouling 8.1 times a game less than my opponents.

Given my team's success this season I've actually been inclined to believe that there is a glitch in the zone.  My preseason expectations were to hopefully just make the NT and I'm on pace right now to get a #1 seed in the tourney.  I really didn't think a team as (relatively) poor as mine could possibly be this kind of defensive force.

Thanks all.  I've had good success at D-II and D-III running my FB/FCP systems at the lower levels by stacking ATH/SPD, but for my first D-1 gig I figured it may be harder to get that advantage and also just wanted to try something different.