1st team AA means jack squat. If I wanted to, I can get national player of the year every year by going into an empty D1 conf and load up distro on any one of my players, but that would be retarded. Martz is rated 867, but 241 of those points are in WE/Sta/Dur, which have 0 impact on performance. Martz is not a bad player but by no means is he great. Between Martz and Brewer, I take Brewer every time. 

Why do you think you should have won the last game? You were pretty lucky to even get into over time. You can call my criteria for player evaluation ephemeral, but clearly my way of evaluating players has been successful. 

I like Brewer a ton as well. That's why I was so worried about him (and not worried about that ****** PG that led the team in scoring) leading up to the game. But I don't think it's fair to say that WE/Sta/Dur have ZERO impact on performance. If Martz had been a 20-30 WE guy, or had 50-60 in Stamina, or 30-40 in Durability, he wouldn't have become near the player he ended up being.

As for your criteria, "ephemeral" doesn't mean "bad." When I used that turn of phrase, what I was meaning is that it's just a fairly random thing to set a data point at X, and judge players based on if their data point is >or < X.

And the reason I felt that if I had game planned better I should've won is because his PG is so terrible. He's an awful passer (for D1), and is really unathletic. In the end, it seems like I "outsmarted" myself by using Rothman incorrectly. Perhaps had I shifted Martz from PF (where he started most of the season) to C, and did everything else the same as I did, the game would've turned out much differently. It's impossible to know that now, but the main reason I felt like I missed an opportunity is because of how bad his PG was, particularly in comparison to MOrgan.

Ath becomes more important as you shift from 1 to 5 so the 30 ath isn't that big of a problem until he faces a pg with 90 speed AND much higher ath. 

And you did dominate his pg. He shot 5/17 from the field (less than 30%), 3/12 from 3 pt range while yours shot 7/14. His whole team shot .406 while yours shot .518. You lost the game because he grabbed 5 more offensive rebounds than you did, with 3 fewer turnover, leading to 8 more fg attempts. 

Your analysis of the loss is spot-on. And I think a HUGE reason for that rebounding disparity was my ill-conceived, too-cute-by-half, decision to try to slow down Brewer with Rothman. Had I not done that, I think I win that game by a couple buckets.

EDIT: I updated the title of this post to more accurately reflect the content therein... 

wildcat, hope you reconsider.  The SL has enough respect issues, and if you do depart we will lose one of our power teams.  

I'll be around at least one more season. Just get frustrated trying to get over the hump and falling short in the CT season after season.     

Posted by jjohn45 on 10/17/2013 7:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 10/16/2013 8:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wildcat98 on 10/16/2013 2:06:00 AM (view original):
For the record, I'm not mad at ANYTHING in the game. I've made my peace with the sim engine, quirks and all, and I don't feel like Campbell was "snubbed" for the NT. It's just got to a point where the frustration level of getting right to the edge of making it to that "next level" and not getting over the hump is outweighing the fun I have in some of the other aspects of the game.

So move on! Start anew! You could just be in a rut, jump to another C prestige job. You've had decent success at Campbell and I am sure you can find another job where you are reinvigorated and can build them into NT caliber teams.

Says the coach with a below .500 all-time record.Hopefully wildcat won't take your advice.

Right of course. I obviously know nothing about this game, and therefore should not be commenting on a thread in a way that frankly takes no knowledge of the game to comment on. 

I am not disqualified from posting because my overall record is sub par. I am improving, building my own team, and you are an ******. Would you rather me advise him to quit?

wildcat, i missed this thread, but just because we've discussed your team in depth in two other threads now, i feel like its worth one quick comment. everything tianyi said here is correct. hes a fantastic coach, one of the very best coaching today, and his understanding of what players are good is spot on. the fact that your guy scored 15ppg and is first team AA really does not mean anything with the schedule you played. as i explained, soon as you face a decent team, your offensive efficiency is going to drop off a cliff, and that is what happened here. the other team isnt really even that good, you can expect a more significant drop when you face stronger teams. 

everybody knows there aren't absolute limits, saying a guy needs 160 ath/spd doesnt mean with 160 ath/spd and **** else, hes better than a 159 ath/spd guy with 99s elsewhere. hes not saying that. its a guideline and should be considered as such and nothing more. but its a good one - the ath/spd of your guards is a tremendous weakness of this team, and it alone essentially guarantees poor performance against decent teams. that is a far, far bigger problem than the game planning decisions you've explained here. you really underestimate what it takes to make a player "good" in d1. i think you are getting mislead because of the weakness of your schedule - as i mentioned earlier. its one thing to take offensive scorers like yours knowing they aren't really worth anything against good teams - but if you don't know that, its going to do you great harm, reinforcing all the wrong things. my best suggestion for you is to dramatically step up your schedule. i dont mean play top 10 or 20 teams and get your *** handed to you - although that is honestly better for your growth as a coach than playing all sims. but you should be trying to find borderline NT teams and play them, so you can get a realistic assessment of how your team will perform against comparable teams. the simple truth is this - you can NEVER learn how to build successful teams when you play so weak a schedule. its literally not possible.

I've upgraded my schedule for next season. There are six teams that finished with a 49 or better RPI. Given what you've mentioned here, I'll probably be fortunate to win even 1 or 2 of those games, but I guess it'll help give me a better feeling for where I actually stand.

Posted by wildcat98 on 10/21/2013 12:56:00 PM (view original):
I've upgraded my schedule for next season. There are six teams that finished with a 49 or better RPI. Given what you've mentioned here, I'll probably be fortunate to win even 1 or 2 of those games, but I guess it'll help give me a better feeling for where I actually stand.

thats what is important. having the mindset that its always worth trading short term success to learn something is the best thing you can do for yourself in the long run. i have always been a student of the game, and i very much consider my willingness to experiment (which almost always implies sacrifice) even with the best teams i'd ever had at the time, one of the key factors that allowed me to be so successful at this game. when you measure success in understanding, not actual results, it will lead you to the material success you desire.

I know the old maxim "you can't measure process by results" is true. It's just that undergoing a complete paradigm shift, from recruiting well-rounded players that are slightly stronger in one area--as I have been doing--to recruiting players who seem really "unbalanced", for lack of a better word, is really going to be difficult. I also think it might get me fired at Campbell, if I have a few down seasons while I "convert" to recruiting young players with the potential to become the type of players you're talking about. We'll have to see how it all shakes out, I guess.

fired? shouldnt be. you don't take a big hit from recruiting those kinds of players, they will contribute meaningfully as sophmores, more than your sophmores do now.

I went from "exceeding expectations" to "meeting expectations" before this past season, so who knows? I just went back up to "exceeding", though, so you're right, even if I have a 12-15 season or something (which would be my first losing season at Campbell), I'd probably still be okay.

Also, I'm now qualified for a few BCS-level jobs, albeit only really ****** ones. Mulling over whether or not to make the jump. Looking at the rosters I'd be working with, I have better talent at Campbell. Of course, that was also the case when I moved from Lynn to Campbell many seasons ago, so there's that.