"When i ran zone, all my players complained because there weren't enough minutes to go around when I'd carry 12 (using fatigue settings)."
why not use 'target minutes'? that's what i do..

Posted by franklynne on 7/9/2019 12:56:00 PM (view original):
"When i ran zone, all my players complained because there weren't enough minutes to go around when I'd carry 12 (using fatigue settings)."
why not use 'target minutes'? that's what i do..

I do use Target Minutes but its very complicated to figure out.

Posted by franklynne on 7/9/2019 12:56:00 PM (view original):
"When i ran zone, all my players complained because there weren't enough minutes to go around when I'd carry 12 (using fatigue settings)."
why not use 'target minutes'? that's what i do..

Depends exactly why you are saying this.

If you want to keep your players from complaining, using target minutes is a good way to accomplish that. I don't feel using target minutes is the best way to win. Nor do i believe the majority of top notch coach believe it either. Of course i may be wrong too. It can create odd substitution patterns and can force a player (maybe your best player) to play less minutes than he could play at an optimal level. (Ex, you have him set for 19-23, but he could have great stamina and play 24-28 effectively). Or vice versa... one of your players could be fatigued, but maybe the engine will sub him in the last 8 minutes of the game, to hit his target numbers.

Where you quoted me, is exactly the situation i explained. I had seniors with good stamina, good cores, and great IQs that could play 20+ minutes a game. Multiple players. So i didn't WANT my freshman playing heavy minutes. If im trying to win, why to do i want freshman Johnny playing 15 minutes a game with low IQ and low ratings? If i can avoid that, i will

Target minutes isn't related to my argument earlier. So I'm not strongly against using it. Or strongly for using it necessarily. I was just responding to your post regarding why i didn't use target minutes. I didn't want to. I would've rather had my fresh seniors playing, and not have 12 players, and have a bigger budget for recruiting next season by having walk ons instead

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2019 12:00:00 PM (view original):
“Also, no one here is saying walk ons add value! Where'd you get that at?”

It’s not a direct response to anything you or anyone said. I’m encouraging folks to think in terms of what adds value to their team. Many are stuck in 2.0 mode, where the scholarship resources were more valuable; having lots of open scholarships scared rivals away. When people say things like you should be taking 2+ walkons every year whenever you play zone, it’s reasonable to presume they are not considering the long and short-term value that even “mediocre” players bring over a walk on.

Ok cool

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2019 11:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 7/9/2019 11:47:00 AM (view original):
A new player isn't going to be at D1. This post isn't directed toward a new player. It's directed at a coach that has a C prestige range D1 school. This coach would have played a decent amount of time now. And understand the basics of "not wasting everything on one recruit specifically" type of deal

This is how I've played it, i am successful. I admittedly have no titles with zone. But that's more because of my lack of interest playing it. I've played zone probably 5% of my seasons. AND did well. If i dedicated the same time to zone that i do with the other sets, I'd be successful with it too. I have done well enough to understand that this strategy was THE reason that i was successful with it.

So don't tell me it's terrible. Tell me you don't like it. That's fine. But it works. Just not your way.

Also, no one here is saying walk ons add value! Where'd you get that at? I'm also not saying "don't take players that will add value down the road".

New players read forum threads about D1. And the concept is the same. Zone requires less stamina, and less contribution from the last 3-4 guys on the bench. As true in D3 as in D1.

I’m not saying the strategy of focusing on your top 8-9 players in zone is bad. That idea is embedded in what I said a few comments above yours - pick 2-3 targets you will be doing max or near max visits on, spend somewhere around 75% of your AP on them. I’m saying the advice you gave in your original comment - pick 1 guy, spend all of your resources on him - is bad. Because it is. It’s good that you clarified that isn’t exactly what you meant. That’s why I responded in the first place.

I do agree the concept is the same. But i also think the zone strategy I'm discussing is actually BETTER for D3. I don't want to say "better for new coaches", because they have soooo much to learn. And it's not good to only listen to topdoggs advice or only listen to shoes advice. They need to absorb everything they can learn from us all and create their own path.

But at D3, the budget is smaller. So being able to carry 9 players and carry walk ons will allow them to have almost a "D2-ish" budget every season. Which in my opinion is a big big helping hand. Like a Shaq hand!

In D3 if you have 3 openings, you have $4k. If you want to run press as effective as possible, you'll wanna fill all 3 spots with $4k. That's not a lot to work with. But if you run zone, you can leave 2 of those spots open EASILY, while having $4k to spend on 1 recruit. That's huge. That's almost "all-in" capabilities on a local recruit. If you can battle and win a stud that can change your program, to me that has more value than finding serviceable players. If you lose that dice roll you spend your $4k on, you can STILL find serviceable players. Likely some the same ones you'd be signing if you were gonna fill your class in the first place.

Posted by franklynne on 7/9/2019 12:56:00 PM (view original):
"When i ran zone, all my players complained because there weren't enough minutes to go around when I'd carry 12 (using fatigue settings)."
why not use 'target minutes'? that's what i do..

Target minutes is worse than fatigue. It can cause some crazy substitutions and totally screw you. I'd advise against it personally.

" It can cause some crazy substitutions and totally screw you. I'd advise against it personally."
If I'm the coach, & choose to use target minutes, I am accepting the substitution pattern it generates.. In my experience, the SIM does a good job of keeping my best players in the game when it counts.

Manufactured Comments.

i have to say it - walkons add value. a lot of it. they give an extra scholarship worth of resources over a mediocre player, or any other player for that matter.

couple things to add - topdogg walking back the poorly worded recommendation to go 'all-in on one player and be fine taking 3 walkons if you miss' is a good thing. you shouldn't be THAT extreme in your approach - especially new to d1 with c+ prestige. its a fine move for an experienced coach, but like shoe said, even then you won't be all in on that 1 player 95% of the time. for a new-to-d1 coach its generally a good recipe for two things - taking 3 walkons and getting frustrated. its OK to try it, but i would recommend a new coach with zone to shoot for at least 10 players, so they have some room to miss.'

topdogg being unwilling to stand up for his idea and assert directly that walk ons have value - not so good :) 3k + 20ap for potentially 4 seasons, that is a lot of value. the overall concept is right; walkons are worth a lot and zone teams can afford to carry multiple of them. there is a lot of nuance in how many walkons one should take; most have too many or too few, few hit the nail right on the head. its also very circumstance-dependent.

that said, the concept is simple. the last player you sign, your 12 man, has to bring substantial value to your team - more than a walkon is worth - to be worth signing. signing a guy to be career backup or a 'good reserve', as i've heard people call them, is generally a pretty bad idea. your player doesn't have to do a damn thing right away, but if hes not a highly valuable starter (or perhaps a very high scoring bench player) by the end of his career - a walkon is worth more.

its the exact same concept for your 11th man or your 10th man, but its just a lot less likely you'll fill your 10th spot with a guy who brings little value than your 12th man spot. still, it happens, i see people do it all the time - sign a guy just to fill a spot, when they really don't need to fill said spot. the key to remember, its far better to have a 'useless' walkon for 1 season, than to sign a guy who hurts you by eating a spot (and the 3k+20ap that comes with it) for 4 years. even if its like, your 8th man in zone you are trying to fill, or 9th with an un-even rotation - sure, that empty spot will hurt you a bit this season, but far less than having dead weight for 4 seasons will.

i do think shoe is right people tend to under-sell the value of projects in the zone. you only need 8 'real' players, so that not only gives you room for walkons, but projects, ineligibles, etc - just like he said. but again, the most common mistake i see people make running zone is settling for mediocre players in that 11th and 12th man spot, which is really awful if you are running zone. take the walkons. its OK in press, but a disaster in zone.

"the key to remember, its far better to have a 'useless' walkon for 1 season, than to sign a guy who hurts you by eating a spot (and the 3k+20ap that comes with it) for 4 years. "

Bingo. I think a mistake that a lot of new (or below average players) make is that they will fill out their roster with players that simply won't help them. Then they're stuck with a mediocre player for 4 seasons.

Also, in the new 3.0 world and dice rolls (especially at D1), I want to maximize the number of chances I have at landing an impactful player. Now, I'm not saying you should shoot the moon and battle A+ teams when you're C+ but you will often find yourself battling other C/B teams for players who aren't superstars but are very solid players that will help you win games and build prestige. So by planning (or just flat out accepting the fact in your mind) that you will take walkons - and that's perfectly OK- you can now afford to get in more dice rolls and maybe you will win a couple or all of them.

Walkons don’t add value. Unless you have an A+ prestige team and have a shot at landing actually usable walkons on occasion, it’s a wash against an ANQ or redshirted player for the first year, and significantly less valuable than an active player you intend to give minutes to.

Walkons do give you extra buying power *for one season*. That buying power is *potential value*, but it has to be realized in terms of a player who adds value to your team. And to what extent another open scholarship helps you do that is tough to quantify. In 2.0, that buying power was worth considerably more than it is now. Folks don’t have to be scared off by a team with more open scholarships. So quantifying how much better shot you’ll have with a single recruit, or how much higher you can successfully reach because of the extra open scholarship in a given year is kind of a fool’s errand. A+ teams go all the way in and still lose guys.

Zone is a different kind of beast for a lot of reasons, and it’s absolutely true that flexibility, which includes the flexibility to take walkons when desired, is an advantage. But the open scholarship is not adding value in itself. You still have to turn it into a player at some point. There are lots of instances where projects, ANQs, and jucos are going to be quantifiably valuable to your team; a bird in the hand vs two in the bush, and all that. Advising folks against recruiting those types of players - because zone - is not helpful, especially for C+ level mid-majors who should be playing in the possible early entry candidate pool for their top targets. Having those “useful bench players” is sometimes the only thing keeping a team above water through the bad luck streaks we all know can happen.

"sign a guy who hurts you by eating a spot (and the 3k+20ap that comes with it"

It's not only recruiting money but scouting money. Top hinted at it, but the scouting budgets at D3 are VERY small. Having 3 openings instead of 1 makes it MUCH easier to scout effectively at D3.

I just spot checked the preseason top 25 teams in D1 Tarkanian. 15 of them have at least one walk-on. 10 don't.

There's more than one way to play HD.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/9/2019 10:25:00 PM (view original):
Walkons don’t add value. Unless you have an A+ prestige team and have a shot at landing actually usable walkons on occasion, it’s a wash against an ANQ or redshirted player for the first year, and significantly less valuable than an active player you intend to give minutes to.

Walkons do give you extra buying power *for one season*. That buying power is *potential value*, but it has to be realized in terms of a player who adds value to your team. And to what extent another open scholarship helps you do that is tough to quantify. In 2.0, that buying power was worth considerably more than it is now. Folks don’t have to be scared off by a team with more open scholarships. So quantifying how much better shot you’ll have with a single recruit, or how much higher you can successfully reach because of the extra open scholarship in a given year is kind of a fool’s errand. A+ teams go all the way in and still lose guys.

Zone is a different kind of beast for a lot of reasons, and it’s absolutely true that flexibility, which includes the flexibility to take walkons when desired, is an advantage. But the open scholarship is not adding value in itself. You still have to turn it into a player at some point. There are lots of instances where projects, ANQs, and jucos are going to be quantifiably valuable to your team; a bird in the hand vs two in the bush, and all that. Advising folks against recruiting those types of players - because zone - is not helpful, especially for C+ level mid-majors who should be playing in the possible early entry candidate pool for their top targets. Having those “useful bench players” is sometimes the only thing keeping a team above water through the bad luck streaks we all know can happen.

you are directly quibbling between 'value' and 'potential value' here. you admit there is potential value, but deny this translates to real value. the event where you get to convert that potential value into value is all that must be examined to determine if you are drawing a difference with distinction or not.

in this case, as long as you are coaching next season and have less than 6 openings from non-walkons, you are guaranteed to experience an event (recruiting) with the potential to convert that potential value to value. over a series of such events, it is unquestionable that having one or more scholarships of money, lets say 2 = 40AP + 6k, is going to significantly improve one's ability to recruit quality talent. it may not work out every season, but all those extra resources will pay significant dividends on average, unless you are totally incompetent.

so, it is clear here that the expected outcome is that the 'potential value' of a walkon will get converted into 'real value' of considerable significance. your argument therefore holds no water.

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/9/2019 11:37:00 PM (view original):
I just spot checked the preseason top 25 teams in D1 Tarkanian. 15 of them have at least one walk-on. 10 don't.

There's more than one way to play HD.

absolutely - i think the pro-walkon folks all agree, if you could get 12 players, all of whom would be quality starters for you at some point, you may as well do so - even in zone. the starters probably won't be any better, but the backups will be more experienced, more development. other sets obviously value depth of talent more, so i think the value of walkons is pretty hard to nail down, especially when you consider not-carrying them gives you pretty good risk protection the year when recruiting completely goes to ****. lot of interesting factors on both sides of it.