I am sure there are plenty opions between the two but would going w/ zone defense give you a little more flexibility in recruiting? I ask because M2M you obviously need everyone to be a decent defender but w/ zone you can have some guys who aren't so hot in defense to get a boost in stats elsewhere. For example if my PG sucks at average at best for defense but has awesome stats/potential in shooting/passing/ball handling would he be better suited for a zone D? I am just trying to decide on m2m vs zone as I feel like in zone every guy you recruit essentially needs to have good DE but in zone maybe you have a little more flexibility in the guys you want to use. Thanks

It sounds to me like you are on the right path.....

yes. good plan in my opinion. 

But don't forget about recruiting good D guys for your zone team. That's where a lot of people go wrong. 
My first D1 NC came with a ZONE team. I was at Dayton and was way undermanned, trying to work my way up. In order to compensate and get good enough guys, I would get 1-2 studs everywhere except for D. Worked for a zone rather well. 

Particularly at the lower levels the incredible defender, low offensive guys really shine....most of my zone teams have a 80+ Ath/def guy to help bring the "average" up.....<br />
=&#160;

If you are brand new to the game, welcome!  My first suggestion would be that changing defense is a guaranteed way to ruin a season.  If you are at a your destination school at D3, then do whatever makes you happy and do it now!  If you are thinking you may move to a different school (excepting a really poor season, you will probably be eligible for all of D2 & D3 next season), then I suggest just run and practice the O&D your team currently plays and figure the game out from there.  

If you've started with a bad team, just changing bad players to a more suitable system won't make them good.  It will, in fact, make them worse while their defensive IQs improve from horrible to mediocre (e.g. D to B+).

Posted by rpolzin25 on 1/18/2016 6:23:00 AM (view original):
I am sure there are plenty opions between the two but would going w/ zone defense give you a little more flexibility in recruiting? I ask because M2M you obviously need everyone to be a decent defender but w/ zone you can have some guys who aren't so hot in defense to get a boost in stats elsewhere. For example if my PG sucks at average at best for defense but has awesome stats/potential in shooting/passing/ball handling would he be better suited for a zone D? I am just trying to decide on m2m vs zone as I feel like in zone every guy you recruit essentially needs to have good DE but in zone maybe you have a little more flexibility in the guys you want to use. Thanks

for new coaches, man defense is usually the best way to start, its the simplest option, and still a very good defense. 

I know you're in an overhaul at Oshkosh, but whatever D you decide on you're going to need to get a lot more athletic across the board. And others have said, welcome.

Thanks for the help. Think I am going to start practicing zone but still play man for games until I get my iq up. Knew I definitely need more athleticism but I like the flexibility that zone defense can give me for recruiting. Plus my recruits from the off-season are likely suited better for zone in the long run.

There is very informative zone thread in the forums, it's worth the read....also the 3-2 and 2-3 are calculated differerntly, be aware of that.