Tarek did not stay that long after FOX took over WIS, but unless you know him personally, we do not know if he had another alias and continued to play the game. Yet, I am reasonably sure it was not 5 years. (?)
There is very little that a veteran coach would have recommended that is being implemented. Mamxet, if you can identify something, I would sure like to know it. :)
OR makes a point that game planning will become more important with the new system than under the so called 2.0. This would be a valid assumption, but it is missing the history behind the changes to the game since FOX acquired the game.
It is not clear to me whether FSS was Tarek's idea, or the incoming group's. There is no question that it was poorly implemented and that a dispute between Tarek and the power's that be transpired. It took them quite awhile to iron out the issues with FSS, and since I think Tarek understood the game, I am not inclined to give the current bunch much credit as they have had no history of competency.
What makes OR's argument leak is that there was another group of changes that Seble's bunch did and which were never discussed, or announced. When I first started playing this game, the 'Gold Standard' for calculating DEF was the number of 3 pt. shots the other team made with some other adjustments considered. At one point, I noticed a lot of peculiar things happening with games and wrote Seble about this.
He admitted to me that the logic had been changed and that he wanted more "creativity" being used in game planning. Never mind that it flew in the face of what would have been a normal simulation of RL. Seble's interpretation of HCA and the number of 3 pt. shooting was based, in part, on how RPI.Com calculated it, but the way they do it flies in the face of what Stats Inc., Elias, and the NCAA say about these things.
As some of you may remember, there were tons of 3 pt. shots being thrown up, and I know of one team that was over 1000 attempts. Seble told me that it was an aberration, but it was clear he toned down the number of 3 pt. shots; probably after repeated complaints. This had two impacts on the game. I still was seeing teams that were in the 700-1000 range on attempts. Second, we started seeing teams making '4' 3 pt. attempts per game. Logically, you would want to cut off the lane, or play the post, but if you do that, there is a pretty good chance you are going to get killed. So, the number of 3 pt. attempts was reduced, but the flawed logic is still in the game. I will maintain that it is still there.
Yes, I know someone is asking why the issue over the 3 pt. attempt. Seble looked at schools that never made the NT that threw up a lot and felt that everyone should be doing it. Historically, what separated the BCS schools from the lower conference teams was the LP game. Now, the Butler's of the world have caught up there. Yet, a typical BCS team will be somewhere around 30-36% of their shots as 3 pt. attempts, and you rarely see those teams that shoot more than that in the NT.
A coach that use to be in Smith told me that he had helped with the mathematics of the original version of the game. He was very successful at the game, so I decided to ask him about why he did the same thing every game. It was suggested he could not tell me that since they have always tried to be tight lipped about the logic, but I came away from those discussions convinced there was something synergistic in the game planning on DEF and OFF. It use to be that the -5 was the primary aberration DEF, but now you will see all kinds of things working which flies in the face of logic.
Among what was surely a number of coaches, I suggested that the logic in the Team Game Planning be improved. Seble told me that it was always that way, but that doesn't make what is there right. Further, they cosmetically made changes to the page, but there is no real change where game planning would become more meaningful. This is why I think OR's hope better game planning will make a difference in the game, but I am going to maintain it is flawed and has not been corrected; primarily because Seble doesn't see that it is flawed.