Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/4/2017 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/4/2017 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Yeah Gettysburg looks good for sure. I think you can get good teams going for D3 only, for sure. Especially if you're a good coach - which you are.

And I don't mean to be offensive but put that team in a superconference like Phelan USA S and I don't think you win enough games to qualify for the NT.

But then again, maybe you'll rip off a run to the F4 this season. who knows.

Are you talking about the 3.0 Super conferences? or the 2.0 superconferences?

I am not convinced this team is great but they are only JR's . I scheduled super hard next season (or am in the process of it) to see how well they really do.

I was referring to the current Phelan USA S. I think the D3 superconferences are pretty rare now right?

But anyway, take a look at the teams that are in there now, it's pretty stacked. 8 teams are in top 16 of projection report. Very tough.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Schedule.aspx?tid=14727

My team is at least as good that Newport team....take your D1 players and shove it.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/4/2017 2:45:00 PM (view original):
My team is at least as good that Newport team....take your D1 players and shove it.

hahaha my point was that I'm probably going to end up with maybe 15 wins and barely qualify for the tourney. I'd consider my team good, definitely not great.

And all my guys except for Rozek are D2.

But anyway, I know the terms like good and great are subjective so we all probably think of them as meaning different things.

Personally, I'd say "great" teams are ones that win titles. "Very Good" teams make the FF. "Good" teams make S16.

Then maybe there's a 'good enough' category of teams that just make it into the NT but aren't really expecting to go anywhere.

La Grange and PBAU have an edge there, and I think the guys in the Carolinas competing have done a solid job

Posted by Benis on 5/4/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):
But anyway, I know the terms like good and great are subjective so we all probably think of them as meaning different things.

Personally, I'd say "great" teams are ones that win titles. "Very Good" teams make the FF. "Good" teams make S16.

Then maybe there's a 'good enough' category of teams that just make it into the NT but aren't really expecting to go anywhere.

If that's the criteria you want to use, ok. But it's fluid, not static. If a team has to be in the final 4 most years to be considered "very good", then there are very very few teams that are very good. And when you find a team that's "great", or "very good" by that standard, that's an indication of a non-competitive situation.

In my experience, the same caliber of team can win the title, and make a first round exit. It happens to everyone. It doesn't mean a team is "great" in one scenario, and "good enough" in another. The reality is that it's the same team, just that one has a better string of luck at the end of the season. If your team was good enough for the sweet 16, it was probably good enough for the final four, in most cases, but with a few extra good bounces.

That should be the ideal anyway, because that's an indicator of competitiveness.

Posted by pdxblazerfan on 5/3/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Since the suggestion thread doesn't seem to get much play on this forum, this is a shameless copy and paste. What are your thoughts on this idea??


Since 3.0 was released, it seems like the only strategy for D2/D3 teams is to hide and hope that a higher division school searching for backup options doesn't find their targets. The recruiting $$ difference is so great that there is no chance for a battle unless the lower division uses up 90% of their resources on 1 guy (and has all positive preferences). While I understand that a cross-division battle should be somewhat one-sided, the problem is with the timing. Usually the D2 coach has pumped everything they had into a recruit in order to beat out another D2...then a D1 sim comes down and poaches the recruit and the D2 coach's chances at recovering for a decent class are destroyed.

In session 1, why not have a staggered timeline where D1 starts, D2 starts, D3 starts, then D1 ends, D2 ends, and D3 ends? A 6-8 cycle stagger would work nicely (1.5-2 days).

D1 could battle each other without worrying about beating away reaching D2 schools for their primary backups. D2 schools would then know which players were D1's primary backup options before using up all their money battling each other for one. At the end of D2 session, coaches wouldn't be terrified hoping a D1 sim doesn't discover their targets (same for the end of D3 session with D2 sims).

Nice to know there's another guy from Portland in here. Go blazers.

Posted by pkoopman on 5/4/2017 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/4/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):
But anyway, I know the terms like good and great are subjective so we all probably think of them as meaning different things.

Personally, I'd say "great" teams are ones that win titles. "Very Good" teams make the FF. "Good" teams make S16.

Then maybe there's a 'good enough' category of teams that just make it into the NT but aren't really expecting to go anywhere.

If that's the criteria you want to use, ok. But it's fluid, not static. If a team has to be in the final 4 most years to be considered "very good", then there are very very few teams that are very good. And when you find a team that's "great", or "very good" by that standard, that's an indication of a non-competitive situation.

In my experience, the same caliber of team can win the title, and make a first round exit. It happens to everyone. It doesn't mean a team is "great" in one scenario, and "good enough" in another. The reality is that it's the same team, just that one has a better string of luck at the end of the season. If your team was good enough for the sweet 16, it was probably good enough for the final four, in most cases, but with a few extra good bounces.

That should be the ideal anyway, because that's an indicator of competitiveness.

Sorry, I meant that I was rating each individual team, not program. You could have a great team one season and then just an average team the next. Or you can consistently have pretty good teams but never make it out of the 1st round.

My thinking is more than just the actual results because crazy things do happen. It's more based upon what is the talent level of a typical FF team. Not the aberration. I think a lot of us can look at teams and say "yeah, that team has a real good shot to win a title".

But luck runs out eventually typically. Making a lucky run to the S16 happens pretty regularly. A lucky run to a FF or a championship is pretty rare I think.