I hear a lot of talk on here about not doing this or doing that because your players will Max on potential before their senior season. What would be the advantage of slowing down a players potential? Wouldn't it be best to Max a player out as early as possible to help your team even in his early years.

Question back to you. Then what would you do with your extra practice minutes?

Quote: Originally posted by mullycj on 1/29/2010Question back to you.  Then what would you do with your extra practice minutes?

If your players are as good as they are going to get, what difference does it make what you do with your practice minutes? I'm not trying to be smart, just curious...

I guess I would probably put my extra minutes into team offense or team defense. Maybe even develope a zone defense to go with my man to man.

That is my thoughts exactly bdixon.

Why do you want players maxing out so quickly? What is the point of that? It takes all coach development of players away.

Why would Dean Smith not want Michael Jordan at FULL potential even as a Freshman?

Quote: Originally Posted By kspoorman on 1/29/2010Why would Dean Smith not want Michael Jordan at FULL potential even as a Freshman?

Why do players even improve then? Why don't we just ditch practice plans altogether and just recruit?

The idea of slowing down the maximizing of a player's potential is silly to me. Why would you want a player to reach his maximum rebounding during his senior year when you can reap the benefits of it sooner? It's the same as not redshirting someone. I don't care when he maxes out, just what that maximum number turns out to be. If I waste practice minutes, so what? I'd rather have the best of my player for games and waste practice minutes, than stunt his growth so I can spread out his attributes.

I see it the same way on redshirting when someone says there is no point. . um. . well, part of the point is I get the guy at his max for a longer period of time, with better IQ's. . .

I am Not suggesting that HD change anything as far as potential. For example: I have three freshman on my team starting and three others getting a lot of minutes off the bench. With me playing them so much so early they will probably max out early. In other words I NEED THEM NOW. There would be no reason to bring them along slowly. I am still coaching them to the max potential, just doing it quicker.

I think mully is being sarcastic.....

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 10/16/2009
My idea has always been some players shouldn't hit big improvement until their senior years, some their junior years and sure some huge growth freshmen. I think the easiest way for them to program it would be after x minutes of pt the player hits their big growth. Of course not all players should have this, some should just be on the linear path and some should be the ones that max out fairly quick. The info could be incorporated into Evals (that are now pretty useless other then using them to get players to take hv and cvs) with "Player has a lot of potential but it might take him a while to get there" or "This kid is ready to touch the sky once we get him into our program".

Also if it was done by x minutes played it would leave it somewhat up to the coach also, get your younger guys pt while they are young, it would help those that had this get their quicker. It wouldn't be hard to do, if they want a player to hit their development in their sophomore year, well then just do the simple math (let's use the average of 12 mpg for an 'average' fr and we will use 27 games, since that is also all anyone is guaranteed.) (also this would be a small added bonus to making the postseason is more pt for your younger guys, since I have always thought it is such bull that player growth stops once you finish the ct) So with that math (12x27) once the player has played 324 minutes he would hit his 'super growth' and would start to reach his potential quicker. If you wanted it to be his Junior year ( ((17x27)+324) = 783 ) so around 800 minutes the player would hit his super growth. (by the way these average minutes are totally made up numbers) Then as a coach if I wanted to get my player there quicker or had a bad team and had to play younger guys and my freshmen sg played 22 mpg he would hit his super growth stage after about 15 games into his freshmen season.

Potential has its place in this game just as player development does. It makes no sense to have no player development, it is a key part of Real College basketball and it should be in WIS too.

Many of you have likely seen this idea I have suggest before I think it goes along with this thread and figured I would re-post it.

Personally I don't think every player should even max out. Some kids never reach their full potential. This could also be in Zhawks view of what potential should be.

I must say though to the rest of you, wouldn't you like to be able to develop your players even further in certain categories? Wouldn't you like to after their sophomore year still be able to improve their outside shot?

There needs to be a balance. Not every guy maxes out in every facet of the game in the NCAA but they do in HD.

Quote: Originally Posted By kspoorman on 1/29/2010I guess I would probably put my extra minutes into team offense or team defense. Maybe even develope a zone defense to go with my man to man.

No..Im not being sarcastic. It's a serious question and his answer is what I find to be a typical error.

In your scenario, yYou are willing to sacrifice early IQ gains to max out ratings gains. Who is to say you would not be better off getting the IQs maxed early and letting the ratings slowly increase?

It's finding the proper balance between ratings increase and IQ increase that's important for the top coaches.

So the answer to your original question, Why not max out IQ gains as fast as possible? It's because you want to maximize IQ gains as well.