FBCB Strategy

[Ben E Lou]

Note the first few sections are from a post I made. The recruiting section is from a post by RPI-Fan. Feel free to add your own thoughts on strategy, or to copy and paste from other good strategy comments you've been. I'm linking to this thread in the reference thread under "other text sims."

LINEUP SETTING
My experience has been that this is a very solid, very realistic game engine. The result is that I don't find myself "playing against the game," but merely using what I consider to be sound basketball strategy. Therefore, lineup setting for me is pretty simple and logical. Here's what I look for in each position, in the order of importance for me:

PF & C--I look at these positions together. I want to have the most important bases covered in the post, so I want two starters who compliment each others' skills, so that between the two of them I can count on these bases being covered: inside scoring, defensive rebounding, post defense, shot blocking. Strength and offensive rebounding are nice to have as well, but I look at these secondarily. Once I pick the two, the one who is better defensively starts at Center.

PG--Ball handling, ball handling, ball handling. We can't score if we don't have the ball, and we won't have the ball if we give it to the other team. I'd rather have a guy like my current point guard: 92 ball handling, 39 passing, than 39/92 guy any day of the week. As when I coach church ball, I *hate* turnovers. http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif After ball handling, and then quickness, pretty much everything else is gravy to me at this position.

SG--If, as is usually the case, I have a good ball handler but weak scorer at the point, I want my 2-guard to be a good outside shooter, 3-point guy. When I have the high-skill ball handler at PG, I don't worry as much about this guy's ball handling. I just want it to be decent.

SF--Definitely the "swing-man" for me. Oftentimes my decision as to a starter here is based more upon what skills I am weak in elsewhere, rather than who my best overall option is. In other words, if my post players are suspect defensively, I will value post defense more highly here. If I think I need help rebounding, then I look for that. If neither my PG nor SG can shoot well from the outside, I look for an outside scorer. I have found that a variety of types of players will work here, if you set your strategies accordingly. I do value quickness at this position.

GAME STRATEGIES
Again, the engine is solid, so sound, logical basketball strategy rules the day here as well.

PACE & PLAYING TIME--I mentioned this earlier in this thread, but this depends entirely on my personnel. The two main things I assess when determining how fast a pace I should use are:

1. How many quality players do I have on the bench?
2. How much endurance do my starters have?

I have just adhered to these general rules:

1. Solid reserves + low endurance starters = low playing time for starters and faster pace.
2. Bad reserves + high endurance starters = high playing time for starters and slower pace.

Depending on how good my reserves are, and how high endurance my starters have, I adjust playing time and pace accordingly. I've literally had success everywhere from 0 to 10 on the pace scale.

MOTION--This one's pretty cut and dried, as is stated in the manual: "A higher motion setting will make the team play a more structured game. It would take away some from the individual freedom to score but it will create more opportunities for less talented scorers. A team with many players who lack the ability to create shots would benefit from using more motion." Pretty straightforward. In case you didn't know it, guys with low INS scoring are the ones who "lack the ability to create shots." I have come to value INS in my recruiting and training camp settings pretty highly, so if things are going according to plan, I use a low motion setting. However, I've been stuck with some starting squads that have caused me to have to increase my motion settings. As one would expect, high-motion offenses seem to work best with guys who take care of the basketball well.

OFFENSE FOCUS--Pretty obvious. I go with my strengths. Even in the early going, though, it isn't that hard to field a relatively balanced team. I use "balanced" more than any other, but this for me this is 100% dependent on my personnel.

DEFENSES--I use two: M2M and 2-3. I don't press and trap much, so these two seem to work just fine. I haven't used it much in FBCB, but if, as with the rest of the game, these things work realistically, I'd use 1-3-1 if I liked to trap.

PRESS/TRAP--I don't use these a lot right now. I know someone posted about LOVING to use these in a "40-minutes-of-hell" style team. Because I like to focus more on offensive skills than defensive skills in recruiting, I usually don't have the kind of personnel to make these work for me.

DOUBLE INSIDE/DOUBLE OUTSIDE--I only bump these up if I have a defensive liability in the post or at one of the guards who I think might benefit from some help.

SCHEDULING
I've found that there are three important bits of information to consider with regard to scheduling:

1. One factor in player development is the level of competition they faced last season.
2. There is no tiredness carry-over from game to game.
3. Your team gets better defensively as they play more games.

Taking these factors into consideration, I do the following:

1. Get as many games in as early as possible. When I was an Indy, I'd sometimes play all of my games every other day until I had all 28 in.
2. Even when I completely suck, schedule at least 3 games on the road against schools with Prestige of 90 or better.

NOTE: Some may consider #1 a "cheat" of sorts, but it is definitely risky. If a key player gets hurt or is academically ineligible, he'll miss *FAR* more games this way. If you do consider this a cheat, then an easy house rule would go something like this: "No more than 3 games scheduled in any one week, and no more than 10 games scheduled in any month." It isn't nearly as big of a deal once you get into a conference.

Now that I'm in a conference, here's how I schedule the 10 games (12 if I don't get invited to play in a preseason tourney) at my disposal:

Day 1: Away, school with Prestige <10
Day 3: Away, school with Prestige <10 (These first two are "tune-ups" to get the defense improving just a little.)
Day 5: Away, school with Prestige >95
Day 7: Away, school with Prestige >95 (The next two are to help with level of competition. Plus, now that I'm good, when I steal one of them it is almost always a quality win. If I'm not in a preseason tourney, I schedule a third away game with a school >95 Prestige.)

Then, I start the home games. I sort by last year's record. I want to schedule teams that had good records--in hopes for quality wins at home. I increase the prestige of the teams I'm playing as I go along, as follows:

Day 9: Home, highest-record school with prestige 30ish points below mine.
Day 11: Home, highest-record school with prestige 20ish points below mine.
Day 13: Home, highest-record school with prestige 10ish points below mine.
Day 15: Home, highest-record school with prestige near mine.
Day 17: Home, highest-record school with prestige 5-10 points above mine.
Day 19: Home, highest-record school with prestige 10-20 points above mine. (If I'm not in a tourney, I schedule another home game against a school with Prestige 10-20 points above mine.)

I don't have a full handle on it yet, but I've found that the highest prestige I can get to come to my place usually has prestige 15-20 points above mine. I use the early home games as tune-ups for the more important ones, but by playing teams that had 20+ wins last year, often I end up getting a quality win or two in that stretch, because that team dominates its low-level conference and eeks into the Top 50. I've found that I tend to be playing some of the same teams during that stretch each year.

RECRUITING (FROM RPI-FAN)
Recruiting really varies depending on the type of school you're using. I felt like I got the best value when I was using an average team in a good conference.

I think one key thing is to remember that your scout's ability and your own scouting rating are key factors in recruiting. When you're with a low level school and/or coach, you'll realize that your scouting resources are really damaging to your recruiting efforts. That SG with A potential in Jumpers, 3's, and PerD? He turns out to be a total bum. Likewise, you won't find any players that are "steals". You'll be relying almost exclusively on the generic rankings, meaning other teams will also have a bead on your players.

Now, in general, I'm finding it's good to recruit either really close to home (home state or bordering states), or really far from home (Foreign, Hawaii, and Alaska). I haven't really studied whether or not this affects how likely a recruit is to come to your school, but just from a resources standpoint it makes sense. Playing as West Virginia, you can evaluate TWICE as many players in the first month if you stay within your region than if you go to one of the "hotbeds" (New York, Texas, California). Evaluating players is important. There are some 3-star guys ranked in the top-200 who are god awful; likewise, I've found guys ranked in the 400's and 500's who were bigtime players.

One example that comes to mind was a big man from Australia, Fred Anderson. He had fabulous inside and rebounding potential, but for some reason was ranked outside the top 200 (he was a 3-star guy). He had great highschool stats (17 PPG/9 RPG IIRC), so that wasn't a problem. For some reason he had just slipped through the cracks of the generic rankings, and my scouts were able to identify him as a good player. I got him without spending much recruiting money, and he was a 4-year starter on an ACC team.

Generally, the way I start out recruiting, is just go through my home state (or nearby states if you're in a small one) and find guys with Average interest and 3-or-better stars. This only really works for lower level schools, and is generally more effective if you scout selectively based on stats. There's very little reason to waste money and time on a 7/3/2 guy with no steals or blocks - he simply isn't going to be very good, no matter what the rankings say.

Usually, after targetting home-state guys, you'll have some money left-over. Then I like to hit up the foreign countries. You can usually evaluate at least one or two guys, and if you don't shoot TOO high can find some pretty effective players here. Again, it's really important here to choose which guys you'll pursue; only take guys with good stats and academically qualified. The AI is pretty smart re: academics; if someone has a 1.8 with a 680 score, the AI will avoid him like the plague. It's good to keep an eye on these guys for later months, because on the freak chance that they do qualify, you can get pretty good value from them. Remember that they won't develop as well as your other players though.

So now you've probably got a list of mostly locals, with a couple long-distance players, and you can see all their ratings. Obviously, it's time to do some more trimming down. This is where you'll have to find your own strategies - you need to figure out where your team does and doesn't need help.

One thing to make sure you look at are the athletic ratings (Quickness, Jumping, and Strength). If there is an otherwise-mediocre player with great athletic ability, he can be productive for your team. I think these guys are underrated; the AI goes after them pretty heavily (and the majority of the top-100 guys are great athletes), idicating they have a good deal of redeeming value.

My personal strategy for getting guys to sign is to go after 4-or-5 HARD in the first two months, and if the interest isn't progressing, dump them and move on to the next guy on your list (who doesn't have high prestige teams courting him). With a larger recruiting budget, you'll be able to go after closer to a dozen guys with a lot of effort - just pick a nice range of "reaches", "definite possibilities", and "safeties". Sometimes you'll be pleasantly surprised to steal someone you thought was out of your range; likewise sometimes you'll get snubbed by guys you should have easily. Like real life, it's not at all cut-and-dry. You can do things to turn the odds in your favor, but can't guarantee anythign will happen.

I know this isn't very in-depth, but recruiting varies SO much depending on your circumstances that it's impossible to put together a truly comprehensive guide that covers every scenario. These tips are things that I have done and have had moderate success with; I'm sure there are better ways to go about recruiting, but there are also worse ways.

[Ben E Lou]

There's more strategy discussion in this thread. (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17315)

[IMetTrentGreen]

i use the 1-3-1 trap 100% of the time, with a ton of double teaming. works like a charm

[Buccaneer]

Man, I am already doing things wrong. :(

[Barkeep49]

For Game Strategies I have found that it helps considerably to have multiple "Key Players".

[Buccaneer]

There's very little reason to waste money and time on a 7/3/2 guy with no steals or blocks - he simply isn't going to be very good, no matter what the rankings say.

I don't know what this means, can someone explain?

[Ben E Lou]

I assume he means 7 points, 3 rebounds, 2 assists.

[sjshaw]

I thought he meant a guy with 7 INS, 3 JPS, 2 something else.

[sjshaw]

Here is a bunch of other strategy I have cut-and-pasted together from other sources.

If it's too haphazard, let me know and I will reformat it.

================================

I read a bunch of threads on the topics and the manual but still don't understand precisely what it does, I understand it in real life but still a little sketchy how to adjust it for my team. I'll just list my assumptions and questions and if you agree or disagree from what you know.

Pace:
Pace will tire your players out more quickly but also the opponents. It will cause more transition points but more turnovers, based on overall passing and dribbling skills and quickness. If you have good passers and but mainly dribblers and good depth or stamina but they are not good scorers this is your best option. Other wise it is good to lower it. The manual says you spend more time looking for a shot if it is low so they're would be more passing and dribbling (depending on motions which one they'll be more of) so then there would be more chance of turnover right? But if you search more for a good shot wouldn't your FG% go up. So what's the better option here. Should depth in athleticism be the only factor.

Motion:

Basically regardless of scoring ability (JS and IS ratings) if you have better dribblers than passers and high quickness go less motion. If you have low motion and bad dribblers you will have high turnovers. If you have better passers then more motion you should have. If it is about equal then about 4-6.

Is any of this right? I would appreciate a response from HR.

=======================================

My view on when to use high pace:

a) Team is generally solid offensively at every position
b) team has good rebounding ability
c) no one standout offensive player you want to focus on
d) Lots of depth
e) High stamina, generally
f) Passing ratings aren't very good, ball handling is decent

High motion if:

a) Passing ratings are good, ball handling ratings are good
b) Team is poor defensively
c) Low stamina; little depth
d) High jumpshooting and 3-point rating than Inside and Quickness

===================================

The quickness is what is coming into play most likely. It comes up mainly when looking at defense or trying to create shots.

============================================

With regards to fouls, what are your press and trap settings? If I were having the fouling issues that you are having, I would have them set real low.

With the ball handling problems, what's your PG's handling rating? I use the 1-10 rating scale, and never let a guy handle the role unless he is rated a 6 out of 10 for handling at the very least. I don't recruit anyone to play the spot unless they have 7+ or 6 with a B or greater potential in that area.

If you're guard has decent handling ability, check your motion and pace settings, and increase/decrease. Essentialy, make it the opposite you have it now

I REALLY hate turnovers, and do everything I can to prevent them, so I generally run slow pace games without much motion. This combined with the players I recruit (no poor ball handling SFs, SGs or PGs will ever get a scholorship offer from me) see's me generally ranked in the top 100 schools when it comes to holding on to the ball

========================================

As I understand it, motion will mean your guys are making a lot of cuts and whatnot, leading to a lot of open shots. However, if you're passing the ball a lot, then you're probably going to miss some, too.

I'd use motion if I have a team the _opposite_ of yours - guys who can't do much in terms of creating or sinking a shot, but play smart basketball and are conditioned.

================================================

first thing i usually do is look at their starters. i rate them compared to my starters and see if one of my players have an advantage.

i look at their C and PF and then look at my own and see who is their strongest player and put my best defender on him (i play a man D though) i do the same thing for the SG and PG.

i then look at the defensive ability of their starters and see if i can take advantage of a players bad D in either Post or Perimeter and then make one of my players a key role player for the game. Usually i choose 3, but sometimes ill just do 2 players here.

i take a look at some of the season info stats and see if they excel in any thing that frightens me...like free throw shooting, scoring D, high offense, turnovers, etc. I make the adjustments as i need to by maybe putting even more pressure on a team that handles the ball well. or upping the pace on a team that has a good scoring D. usually if i see that a team has a low offensive output i can tell they run a slow paced game and i dont like that and want to play the tempo of my choosing and will run them to death to wear them out and get them to sub quite a bit.

now during the game i keep an eye out on who is in foul trouble on their team. if i notice someone in foul trouble on the inside, i will obviously switch up to playing an inside game and have my guards slash some and bang it with my big guys. if i notice one of my key players is not shooting well, i will take him off and choose another player who is playing well. if one of their guys is kicking my butt then he gets doubled up on unless i can put a better defender on him, which i usually would of already done at the start of the game.

late game options...once i get the lead i milk the clock in stages...i dont do it all at once, but gradually decrease the pace of the game til it is over.

also, in my conference, after i play a team, then prepare to play them again, i look at the prior game and see what worked and didnt. that is probably the best scouting tool right there is just prior matches.

===========================================

When I get serious for an important game, I start making a little chart for each opposing player. Mainly I'm formatting numbers so they stand out. I put the name at the to, then four sets of numbers. Top left is shooting, Inside-Outside-3pt. Don't care so much for FT as I can't effect that. But I want to spot when the opposition has a big inside or outside threat. Top right is defense. Bottom left is passing-handling, especially since I want to know if a pressure defense is going to work on them. Bottom right is steals-blocks. Guess I need more than four, as Rebounding has to go in there. And usually I write Quick-Jmp-Str across the bottom somewhere. The main one I watch is Quick, as I use that as a guide as to when I should press and run on a team.

Don't know if the system is that good, but the idea is to get me an organization to those ratings so I'm not just staring at a row of numbers.

When I'm playing Man defense, I'm mostly concerned about matchups. I need good defenders on their scorers. So those shooting stats are the main thing I look at. On my own offense, if I spot something awful in the other defense, or something really good (9 post def with 9 block), I might tilt my offense towards or away from it. But on offense I tend to watch my team, and then try to spot a hot player and tilt towards them. Since I don't know exactly what's happening with a zone, or if the opposition is double-teaming, that seems to be the best way to go. Seems like you could get into trouble by trying to attack their 3 perimeter defense, but you don't know that your player is being doubleteamed.

================================================

My strategy:
(1) Hire good to excellent assistant coaches
(2) recruit mediocre players that are excellent in steals and their defense (interior for PF/C and perimeter for PG/SG)
(3) recruit players with high inside scoring ability
(4) Press and Trap at 10 the entire game every game
(5) Only use 3 or 4 defenses per season, trying to get them to 100 as soon as possible.
(6) Pace, motion, and 3 point shooting set depending on teams talent
(7) Red-shirt as much as possible
( Play as many games as early in the season as possible (this gets your teams proficiency in playing their defenses higher before the teams you are playing. Watch out for injuries though, because if you bunch too many games together, one minor injury may take out a key player for a lot of games)


How this works: By recruiting for a very specific style of play I avoid competing head to head with teams for players I can not win. A lot of times a very good defensive player (3+ steals with B+ or better in their key defensive rating) will go unrecruited because they can't shoot, rebound, pass or all three. However, because this strategy leads to a lot of steals and fastbreaks, the players shooting rating means very little (a lot of dunks on the fast break). I prefer inside shooting because I want my guys taking the ball to the hoop as much as possible, drawing fouls and taking higher percentage shots because my team is often times only mediocre (or worse) in the half-court sets. With this strategy, I can beat some very good teams, but sometimes I get beat by a team with a very good point guard, who just refuses to turn the ball over (even if his team isn't that good). As my team improves, I'll keep an eye out for those games where I don't think the pressing and trapping will do any good, and drop back into a more conventional setting.

===============================================

If I'm ever playing a team that has poor ball handlers (which happens quite often, considering the quality of teams I play mostly), I just press and trap the heck out of them. This has been successful for me, but it does require some bench depth, as your starters tire quite quickly.

Another mistake I have made is playing only a man defense. Most of my starters are good defenders, but to keep a player like my stud Center on the court (who only has a fatigue rating of 4), I need to set his D intensity to low, which means we get burnt every so often by teams with two inside threats. It does keep him out of foul trouble though (he is rated a 3 for fouls). I'd like to be able to mix this up a little bit as my conference has a few teams with good inside players, but it's too late to switch defenses now, as my man D rating is 99, whilst I'm 50 for everything else.

=========================================

I've been tending to run 3 defenses. Man-to-Man, and inside zone (2-1-2, 2-3 type) and an outside zone (2-3). For exactly the reason you state, get those proficiencies up.

Too bad they don't carry over year to year. Maybe go up slower during a year, and maybe have the rate of increase depend on the level, ie its harder to go from 90 to 91 than it is to go from 50 to 51.

But it seems like a program like Temple that plays a Matchup Zone for year after year should get some benefit from having Seniors who've played that system for four years. Especially if the coaches stick with the program too.

I keep trying to redshirt, but can't always do much of it. But I definitely look every year when I can to see if I can redshirt.

==========================================

C: INS/DRB/PSD Strength
PF: Same
SF: Kind of an all-around player who can play both inside or outside. You can play either a good interior or good outside playere here too as long as you adjust the game plan.
SG: INS/JPS/PRD Jumping and Quickness
PG: Handling and Quickness. Then Passing/PRD.

========================================

motion, lots of 3 pointers, tons of pressing and trapping. '40 minutes of hell' if you will. We have great success and make the Elite 8. Average scores are like 90-80

Year 2: All that talent graduated, well my starting 5 did. The freshman were too raw to use and the top 5 for that year were clearly a step below what I had last year. The AI still recommended a very up tempo game, but 3 of my first 5 games were blowout losses, so clearly a change had to be made. I knew my top 5 guys were good, but I had little depth and was weak at the 3 point shooting, so I set the pace to 0, motion to 10, medium use of three pointers, and set the scoring focus to bang it in the paint. We turned the season around and made the Elite 8 again. Average scores are like 60-50.

Year 3: We have depth now, so we pick up the tempo a bit. We struggle though and finish 19-13, getting knocked out in the first round of the tournament as a 7 seed.

That is just one example, but the one of my favorite strategies it to recruit all defensive players and play a real grind it out game of ball. Pitt Panther like basketball if you will. The game recommended setting will never give you this from what I have seen, so you have to set it on your own. It is hardly micro-managing. It takes all of 60 seconds to decide what type of game you want to play, and it is just so well done, and something that not a lot of sims do well.

=========================================

My favorite strategy is probably run and gun. 10 pace, 10 pressing, 10 trapping, usually high 3-pointers. Just go out and recruit some solid perimeter players with high stealing and then add one or two guys who can rebound. Almost too effective with lesser teams (although that could be due to almost always out-recruiting the AI teams in the lower levels.) I think I'm going to try it with a Top 10/15 team and see if it can be as effective in the power conferences.

============================================

A couple more thoughts on recruiting:

1. Once I get rolling, I only go after high school players, with one exception: if a guy decides to leave school early and I don't have someone waiting in the wings to be a solid starter the next season.

2. In light of only going after high school players, and redshirting practically every single one of them, when I am assessing my recruiting position needs, I only look at players who are Sophs and lower. Because my recruits won't be playing next season anyway, I don't care that much about the talent of the current Junior class.

3. There are useful players to be found amongst the one-star crowd. Check out Donald Kelly from above. Rated #1316 overall, I expect he'll give me some pretty decent scoring and shot-blocking off the bench....and maybe even as a starter one day.

4. Stats are at least somewhat meaningful. Check them! They can be especially helpful in finding guys who might be able to play out of their listed position. If I'm looking for a point guard, I sort first on steals, then I start looking down the page at guys who average more assists than turnovers--even if they are listed at 2 or 3. Some of these guys end up having good ball handling skills and quickness, and can be converted into point guards. A few other ones...
Tall PG's with solid scoring numbers could be 2G's.
Tall SG's with good scoring and rebouding? Perhaps he can fill that need at SF.
Post players with decent steals and Ast/Tur ratios sometimes end up being quick enough and good enough ball handlers to play SF.
Similarly, taller SF's with high rebounds, shot blocking and who are on the heavy side for their heights might just have the skills to get it done in the paint.

=======================================

I use stats a decent bit but you have given me some food for thought. I REALLY look at fg%/ft%/3% a lot. If a guy is in the high fours or low fives I consider him a player. Then I match this with his points output to see if I have a scorer or an opportunist who either rebounds well or knows how to play within his game. I don't know if it matters but in the past it's served me well when culling the ones and twos. This is actually the first time to start a low level team where I haven't had to take at least one 2 or less.

===========================================

I've found that giving a guy 10 points in stamina for at least his first two training camps general gets them at least passable. As smart as this guy is, you probably won't have to give him any study points. I'd go after him in a heartbeat at this stage of your career. Don't even think twice about it. Yeah, this is the kind of go after heavy early one.

I don't pretend to fully have a handle on playing time yet. Knowing that there are two ways to help control how tired my guys get (pace and playing time) I have just adhered to these general rules:

1. Solid reserves + low endurance starters = low playing time for starters and faster pace.
2. Bad reserves + high endurance starters = high playing time for starters and slower pace.

==============================================

The thing I think I like best about this game is that I've found that doing what is simple and logical usually has the expected results. One season in particular really sold me. I had two very good post players, decent ball-handling (but not good at shooting or driving) guards, and an average SF. Also, I didn't have a lot of depth. I lowered the pace to 1 or 2, put the focus on the inside game, and made my two big guys the only offensive focal players. The results were very satisfying. We *crushed* most of the teams we played, even good ones, because they couldn't stop us from scoring nearly every time down the court as we'd patiently get it inside. However, there were a few teams in my weak conference that gave me trouble, and I had two conference losses even. Both conference losses, and all of our close games even, were against teams with good defensive guards, and the losses were high-scoring. I didn't check every game, but in the ones I did check, I saw those teams doing a lot of pressing and trapping. Perhaps other teams tried it as well, but remember, I had decent guards. However, they weren't GREAT guards. The teams with very good defensive guards had a lot of success against us, and ultimately, we lost in the 2nd round of the NCAA's to a lesser team with good defensive guards.

[Ben E Lou]

I thought he meant a guy with 7 INS, 3 JPS, 2 something else.In context, he was talking about stats: This only really works for lower level schools, and is generally more effective if you scout selectively based on stats. There's very little reason to waste money and time on a 7/3/2 guy with no steals or blocks - he simply isn't going to be very good, no matter what the rankings say.And, the statement makes sense if he's talking about stats.

[RPI-Fan]

I assume he means 7 points, 3 rebounds, 2 assists.

This is the correct interpretation. (in FBB dynasties I was a huge fan of the x/y/z notation for stats - very simple and quick way to get a very strong idea of how a player does. In FBCB, with 8 fewer minutes per game and thus fewer stats, and just more "intangible" things, the notation isn't as useful.

[RPI-Fan]

Something else I've really been wanting to discuss are the offense ratings. I'm starting to think JPS means very, very little, while INS means a whole lot more.

Ironically, a big man with a decent JPS rating is a lot more productive than a guard with a strong JPS rating, from what I've found.

Let me provide just one example that really got me on this train of though - look at these two players:

PLAYER DETAILS

#54 SG Carlos Herrington - Cornell - Senior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height: 6' 5"
Weight: 208
High School: Bay Shore High School
Hometown: Bay Shore, NY

Attributes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type INS JPS FTS 3PS HND PAS ORB DRB PSD PRD STL BLK PFS QKN STR JMP STA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 68 41 64 83 36 57 48 52 23 69 12 4 56 71 52 67 82
Potential: B C B A C C C C D B F F

and

PLAYER DETAILS

#34 SG Stefan Sandleitner - Cornell - Junior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height: 6' 2"
Weight: 177
High School:
Hometown: Lubeck, Germany

Attributes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type INS JPS FTS 3PS HND PAS ORB DRB PSD PRD STL BLK PFS QKN STR JMP STA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 24 81 84 40 24 28 29 34 4 43 92 4 34 83 40 93 100
Potential: D B B C D D D C F C A F


Which player do you like better? They both have great athleticism - the first guy is just more of an inside dribble-drive guy. However, the second is a pure shooter with very strong athletic ability, meaning you'd think he can find his own shots.

Now look at their stats

Stat Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season G GS MIN PTS ORE REB AST TO A/T STL BLK PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 29 0 11.4 6.3 0.5 2.2 0.7 0.9 0.70 0.2 0.0 1.1
2009 33 0 21.2 13.0 1.3 4.2 1.8 2.2 0.83 0.5 0.1 2.4
2010 29 25 28.6 18.5 1.8 5.8 2.4 3.1 0.77 0.7 0.0 2.3
0 30 30 29.2 19.0 1.8 6.5 2.7 2.3 1.19 0.8 0.0 2.9
Career 121 55 22.6 14.2 1.4 4.7 1.9 2.1 1.19 0.6 0.0 2.2

Shooting Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season FGM FGA FG% FTM FTA FT% 3PM 3PA 3P% PPS +/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2.1 4.9 .437 1.1 1.5 .750 0.9 2.2 .391 1.28 0.48
2009 4.4 10.9 .402 2.3 2.9 .800 1.9 5.1 .383 1.19 5.94
2010 6.2 15.0 .417 3.5 4.2 .821 2.6 6.5 .392 1.24 5.48
0 6.6 14.1 .467 2.9 3.6 .796 3.0 7.6 .399 1.35 9.00
Career 4.8 11.2 .430 2.4 3.1 .800 2.1 5.4 .392 1.27 5.28

Stat Totals:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season G GS MIN PTS OREB REB AST TO STL BLK PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 29 0 331 182 14 65 19 27 7 0 32
2009 33 0 701 430 44 140 59 71 16 2 79
2010 29 25 830 537 53 169 70 91 21 0 67
0 30 30 877 571 54 196 81 68 23 1 88
Career 121 55 2739 1720 165 570 229 257 67 3 266

Shooting Totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season FGM FGA FTM FTA 3PM 3PA +/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 62 142 33 44 25 64 14
2009 145 361 76 95 64 167 196
2010 181 434 101 123 74 189 159
0 197 422 86 108 91 228 270
Career 585 1359 296 370 254 648 639

Career Highs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Pts OReb Reb Ast Stl Blk TO FGM FGA FTM FTA 3PM 3PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season 38 7 12 8 3 1 5 15 23 9 11 7 12
Career 38 7 12 8 3 2 8 15 24 9 11 7 12

Awards & Acheivements:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Award
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Player of the Game: 31
2006 High School: Rated *** and #125 overall by the FBCB scouting service.
2010 1st Team All-Conference (Ivy League)
2010 Conference Player of the Year (Ivy League)
2011 1st Team All-Conference (Ivy League)
2011 Conference Player of the Year (Ivy League)


Stat Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season G GS MIN PTS ORE REB AST TO A/T STL BLK PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 28 28 31.1 9.5 0.6 4.0 1.6 2.5 0.62 1.4 0.0 2.0
2007 28 28 26.6 9.6 0.8 3.1 1.7 1.8 0.92 2.3 0.0 2.8
0 29 29 28.9 9.8 0.8 3.7 1.8 2.4 0.75 2.3 0.1 2.6
Career 85 85 28.9 9.6 0.7 3.6 1.7 2.3 0.75 2.0 0.0 2.5

Shooting Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season FGM FGA FG% FTM FTA FT% 3PM 3PA 3P% PPS +/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2.7 6.4 .417 3.6 4.1 .895 0.5 1.8 .265 1.47 -7.07
2007 3.3 7.4 .442 2.3 2.4 .940 0.8 2.6 .306 1.29 -2.21
0 2.9 7.3 .398 3.2 3.6 .903 0.8 2.7 .295 1.35 0.07
Career 3.0 7.0 .419 3.0 3.3 .908 0.7 2.3 .291 1.37 -3.04

Stat Totals:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season G GS MIN PTS OREB REB AST TO STL BLK PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 28 28 870 265 16 111 44 71 39 1 57
2007 28 28 746 269 23 86 47 51 65 0 77
0 29 29 839 284 24 107 53 71 66 2 75
Career 85 85 2455 818 63 304 144 193 170 3 209

Shooting Totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season FGM FGA FTM FTA 3PM 3PA +/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 75 180 102 114 13 49 -198
2007 92 208 63 67 22 72 -62
0 84 211 93 103 23 78 2
Career 251 599 258 284 58 199 -258

Career Highs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Pts OReb Reb Ast Stl Blk TO FGM FGA FTM FTA 3PM 3PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season 20 5 9 4 7 1 6 7 14 11 12 3 7
Career 24 5 9 4 7 1 6 9 17 12 12 4 7

Awards & Acheivements:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Award
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Player of the Game: 9
2004 High School: Rated *** and #283 overall by the FBCB scouting service.
2006 Freshman All-Conference (Ivy League)
2006 Conference Freshman of the Year (Ivy League)


Harrington (first guy) was BY FAR more productive. He was a good 3-point shooter and a good dribble-driver, while Sandleitner was a great jump shooter and a great foul shooter. Yet, Harrington was much, much more productive. (I know Sandleitner's Senior stats don't show up, but they were very much similar to his Junior year).

Again, this guy should be a great scorer - he has above average athletic ability and is a pure shooter... however:

PLAYER DETAILS

#23 SF Darryl Williams - Cornell - Senior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height: 6' 5"
Weight: 189
High School: Southampton High School
Hometown: Southampton, NY

Attributes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type INS JPS FTS 3PS HND PAS ORB DRB PSD PRD STL BLK PFS QKN STR JMP STA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 8 76 80 78 35 12 67 21 47 54 56 42 2 73 63 58 100
Potential: F B B B C F B D C C C C

Health: Good
Scholarship: Yes
Status: Active Roster
Academics: 73

Stat Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season G GS MIN PTS ORE REB AST TO A/T STL BLK PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 28 0 19.0 6.8 1.1 2.6 1.2 1.5 0.79 0.8 0.1 2.1
2008 29 5 21.7 6.4 1.5 3.4 1.2 1.4 0.81 1.2 0.1 2.3
2009 34 34 24.1 9.0 2.0 3.7 1.6 2.1 0.77 1.6 0.1 2.4
0 29 29 22.6 8.6 2.2 4.2 1.4 1.7 0.88 1.3 0.1 2.1
Career 120 68 22.0 7.8 1.7 3.5 1.4 1.7 0.88 1.3 0.1 2.2

Shooting Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season FGM FGA FG% FTM FTA FT% 3PM 3PA 3P% PPS +/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 2.1 5.1 .410 1.7 2.3 .750 0.9 2.5 .357 1.33 2.39
2008 2.0 4.4 .453 1.6 1.9 .818 0.9 2.4 .357 1.45 0.59
2009 3.1 6.8 .465 1.5 1.8 .820 1.2 3.5 .353 1.33 5.65
0 2.9 6.7 .430 1.7 2.0 .828 1.2 3.1 .385 1.29 4.66
Career 2.6 5.8 .442 1.6 2.0 .803 1.1 2.9 .363 1.34 3.43

Stat Totals:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season G GS MIN PTS OREB REB AST TO STL BLK PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 28 0 533 191 31 72 33 42 23 3 60
2008 29 5 630 186 43 98 34 42 35 2 66
2009 34 34 821 306 69 127 54 70 54 2 81
0 29 29 656 249 65 123 42 48 39 4 62
Career 120 68 2640 932 208 420 163 202 151 11 269

Shooting Totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season FGM FGA FTM FTA 3PM 3PA +/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 59 144 48 64 25 70 67
2008 58 128 45 55 25 70 17
2009 107 230 50 61 42 119 192
0 83 193 48 58 35 91 135
Career 307 695 191 238 127 350 411

Career Highs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Pts OReb Reb Ast Stl Blk TO FGM FGA FTM FTA 3PM 3PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season 23 5 8 3 4 2 4 8 12 5 6 4 6
Career 27 7 10 4 4 2 6 10 16 8 10 4 6

Awards & Acheivements:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Award
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Player of the Game: 16
2005 High School: Rated *** and #358 overall by the FBCB scouting service.
2005 High School: All-State (New York)
2007 Freshman All-Conference (Ivy League)
2009 1st Team All-Conference (Ivy League)


Compare that to this guy...

PLAYER DETAILS

#42 SF Robert Wagner - Cornell - Senior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height: 6' 5"
Weight: 207
High School: Roane County High School
Hometown: Spencer, WV

Attributes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type INS JPS FTS 3PS HND PAS ORB DRB PSD PRD STL BLK PFS QKN STR JMP STA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current: 95 46 68 63 48 62 70 15 52 17 55 18 38 72 53 59 100
Potential: A C B C C C B D C F C D

Health: Good
Scholarship: Yes
Status: Active Roster
Academics: 62

Stat Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season G GS MIN PTS ORE REB AST TO A/T STL BLK PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 30 30 24.8 15.5 1.9 3.7 2.7 1.5 1.82 0.9 0.2 2.5
0 17 17 28.4 18.6 3.2 6.0 3.6 2.5 1.44 2.1 0.1 2.4
Career 47 47 26.1 16.6 2.4 4.6 3.1 1.9 1.44 1.3 0.1 2.4

Shooting Averages:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season FGM FGA FG% FTM FTA FT% 3PM 3PA 3P% PPS +/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 5.4 12.4 .437 3.5 4.3 .828 1.1 2.8 .398 1.25 8.70
0 7.0 14.5 .482 4.0 4.9 .810 0.6 2.0 .324 1.28 1.12
Career 6.0 13.2 .455 3.7 4.5 .821 0.9 2.5 .376 1.26 5.96

Stat Totals:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season G GS MIN PTS OREB REB AST TO STL BLK PF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 30 30 744 465 57 112 82 45 27 5 75
0 17 17 482 317 55 102 62 43 35 1 40
Career 47 47 1226 782 112 214 144 88 62 6 115

Shooting Totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season FGM FGA FTM FTA 3PM 3PA +/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 163 373 106 128 33 83 261
0 119 247 68 84 11 34 19
Career 282 620 174 212 44 117 280

Career Highs:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Pts OReb Reb Ast Stl Blk TO FGM FGA FTM FTA 3PM 3PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season 27 8 13 7 7 1 7 11 20 11 13 3 5
Career 31 8 13 7 7 1 7 11 21 11 13 4 5

Awards & Acheivements:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Award
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Player of the Game: 18
2009 High School: Rated *** and #314 overall by the FBCB scouting service.
2011 1st Team All-Conference (Ivy League)


It just seems that I'm finding, time and time again, guards with decent size (6'2" - 6'6") are MUCH more productive if they're good inside rather than outside. I'll be continuing to keep my eye on this and hopefully will later be able to report back with a better supported theory.

[Ben E Lou]

RPI--

A few key stats *REALLY* stand out to me:

CAREER POINTS PER SHOT
Herrington: 1.27
Sandleitner: 1.37
Williams: 1.34
Wagner: 1.26

SHOTS TAKEN PER GAME IN MOST RECENT SEASON
Herrington: 14.1
Sandleitner: 7.3
Williams: 6.7
Wagner: 14.5

In other words, even though Sandleitner and Williams are shooting from the outside, rather than up close like Herrington and Wagner, they're actually a little more effective each time they shoot. However, they aren't shooting NEARLY as often as the big men. Why??? Well, check this out from the manual:INS: Inside play has the player work on his scoring moves and his rebounding positioning. Players with higher inside scoring ability are better at creating shots.Read this thread (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=23006&highlight=FBCB+INS) for more info on this. With a guy with extremely low INS like Williams, you HAVE to use a high motion setting and have guys who are good passers to set him up to get his shots. I've found that guys like him are good complementary players when I have a true scorer or two who can draw the double team. Leave Williams open, and he'll drain it, but he can't be the feature scorer most likely.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola...

Here's the key phrase from HR in the thread mentioned above: INS is factored into the ability for guards to create shots on their own. Quickness is a factor as well. Someone who is low in both would need another player to create the scoring opportunity for them.

[Ben E Lou]

Bump:

Making sure RPI-Fan saw my response.

[Calis]

Haven't read the whole thing, but from what bit I did read great stuff SkyDog. Learned some new stuff from this.

I never knew that players didn't have fatigue carry over. I guess I just always assumed that it would up there chances for injury and such to play too much too close together. Never bothered to check into that though. That's a rather important piece of info to know.

[Buccaneer]

Have a question about who to recruit. If you are graduating, say a PG, SF and a C, are those the positions you recruit (assuming no redshirt)? Or do you look ahead and guess? Do you assume that you will be starting Sophomores?

[Ben E Lou]

I recruit based solely on looking at my freshmen and sophomores, not necessarily on what positions I'm graduating. I write down the starter-quality players I at each position in the freshman/soph classes, and then recruit to fill in accordingly.

[Buccaneer]

Thanks, that makes sense.

[Easy Mac]

I'm more of a "fill the roles you lose" guy. Not very realistic, but it works for me. It allows me to target my recruits to my needs. That way I never have a glut at a position. I carry 3 at each spot. I set up my redshirts so that I have 3 players graduate each year. So I have 3 redshirts at a time, and 3 former Redshirts of each class. I'm sure when I have a player leave early it will mess up my rotation. But I'll be good by then so it is ok. Right now I run a running offense, so my centers ride the pine, but it works.

[Malificent]

Here's a random sort of question: Is the game engine strong enough to handle an extreme sort of set-up offensively? For example, let's say I basically recruited a team where all the players were ball handlers, passers, and jumpshooters. No centers, no real big guys. An extreme motion offense where any player could play any position at any time. Would that have a chance of being successful in the game or would the game treat my "center" as a center and have him hanging out in the post all day regardless?

[Honolulu_Blue]

So, I just bought this game last week, because I am travelling for a month and needed a game on my work laptop (need to unwind after work). I've enjoyed it quite a bit, but felt like I was just rushing through the seasons, without really allowing myself to really get into the game. To this end, I decided to check out the FBCB forum to read up on some strategy and get a feel for the types of things I should be looking at and doing throughout the season and recruiting.

What happens? I follow a link back here. Classic!

FOFC, is there anything we can't do?

Oh yeah, bump.

[Franklinnoble]

So, I just bought this game last week, because I am travelling for a month and needed a game on my work laptop (need to unwind after work). I've enjoyed it quite a bit, but felt like I was just rushing through the seasons, without really allowing myself to really get into the game. To this end, I decided to check out the FBCB forum to read up on some strategy and get a feel for the types of things I should be looking at and doing throughout the season and recruiting.

What happens? I follow a link back here. Classic!

FOFC, is there anything we can't do?

Oh yeah, we can't have a QOTM...
:D

[Honolulu_Blue]

:D

You've gotta respect the single-mindedness, I guess...

[Franklinnoble]

You've gotta respect the single-mindedness, I guess...
Eh... it's not really single-mindedness. I'd like to think I contribute a lot more around here on a much wider variety of subjects. But I can't resist an easy opportunity to keep a running gag going... :D

[The Afoci]

Eh... it's not really single-mindedness. I'd like to think I contribute a lot more around here on a much wider variety of subjects. But I can't resist an easy opportunity to keep a running gag going... :D

I would say it is fair to say that you are the authority on rectal itches.

[Franklinnoble]

I would say it is fair to say that you are the authority on rectal itches.
And you're always first in line to scratch...

[The Afoci]

And you're always first in line to scratch...

With both hands tied behind my back.

[QuikSand]

Despite the last few posts, I have gotten quite a lot out of this thread. I have caught the seasonal fever, I suppose, and am amidst a FBCB career myself.

Quick question about the national ratings system. I'm more than a little perplexed how my team sometimes jumps well up into the national ratings, despite not actually accomplishing all that much on the court. It's perplexing, seems like my team is getting votes largely based on the perceived quality of my recruits.

Example - I am coaching Binghamton, who recebntly moved up from the Atlantic East to the Atlantic Ten. In three A10 seasons, we were a #2 conference seed once, and then about a.500 team the last two seasons. This year, I have a great recruiting class coming off redshirt, with two Top 25 players both appearing on my roster. My team, fresh off a pretty mediocre 17-15 year capped by a round one NIT Loss, is a pre-season Top 10 team in the country!?! And even as the season goes on, and we are better but not all that great... our team remains pretty highly considered -- all year long, we are ranked higher than UConn (relegated to the A10 some years ago), even though they have a better record than us inside and outside the conference, and a tougher schedule as well.

I've also seen broad disconnects between the national rankings and the tournament seedings sometimes (though I don't pay much attention to it) -- with teams ranked #8 or #9 in the polls sometimes getting a #1 seed, and the #1 team in the country sometimes being a lower seed... that sort of thing. (Yes, I know there is some of this in real life, I am curious whether there is something inherently skewed in the game)


Anyway - for those who have really invested in this game, just a few curiosities.

[QuikSand]

Oh, perhaps another question...

I have built my team's prestige up into the 70s... and have had some pretty reasonable success. However, I still *never* see any recruits of the caliber that I'm willing to offer a scholarship who start out with any interest in my school. Regionally, they all want to go to Syracuse... *sigh*. But Binghamton isn't even on the top five list for any of the three-star players... as in never. I am pretty sure that I have never seen a single three-star player who listed Binghamton among his top five initial schools.

Is this a bias against the human-run school(s)... or is it perhaps a function of having a school that recently was a low-reputation bottom feeder?

[albionmoonlight]

Sorry I can't answer your second question. My first career, I started an easy career with a fully developed coach. My 100 recuiting points always allowed me a shot at recuits that I had no business getting. In my current career, we are still bottom feeding (just moved up to a 2 prestiege conf.), so I'm not really in the market for the difference makers yet.

As to your first post, I have seen something similar. I think that polls are based initially on how you look on paper but later in the season on how you are doing. I have seen the exact same thing as you--a team with a couple of good freshmen coming in gets rated very highly in the preseason polls.

I have, however, seen the opposite at the end of the spectrum at the end of the season. The first year that my prestiege 1 conference residing Emory Eagles did really well, we got to the end of the season with 3 losses. That was playing all Big South Teams and the lowest prestiege teams that we could find. We had a gaudy record, but it was all a sham because we had not beaten anyone good, nor were we actually that good ourselves. Nevertheless, we were ranked #22 in the end of season poll.

As to tournment seeding, I think that it has a lot to do with RPI. I ran an experiment where I took a low prestiege team (Birminham Southern, I think) and gave them all superstar players to see how the game would react. They started the season unanimous #1 (more proof that preseason polls are mainly about how you look on paper) and won every game by a margain of ~30 points. Sometimes they would win games by 70. They won the Big South and, come tourament time, were an 8th seed. That leads me to think that seeding has a lot to do with RPI--because they were a great team on paper with a lousy RPI because they never played anybody.

FWIW.

[Buccaneer]

Michael, I am gald to see you playing this great game. Here are my thoughts to your questions. I take the early season rankings - both polls and RPI - with a grain of salt. If you look at the RPI at the beginning of the season, they are ranked alphabetically. Slowly then they adjust to a more truer ranking by the time the non-conference portion ends. Even at the start of December, you have teams that have played only 1 game, so I believe it's hard to come up with a normalized ranking.

As far as tournament seedings (and seeing a surprise team ranked high late in the season), I have noticed what you are seeing at times. I following the polls and rpi each Monday in February and into March (this along with the bubble watch and the anticipation of March Madness are my favorite parts of the game). The top seeds generally do follow spot on in relation to conference tournament success and rpi. Even further on down, I generally see a predictable logic. For instance, I now have my team (Colgate) into the Big East where we would place 6-7 teams in the tournament. Even though you would see seedings 1-2 higher/lower than expected (just like in real life), they do consistently follow the expected pattern relative to each other. Even if a low seeded team wins the Big East, they get a seed that makes sense.

As far as matching the polls, there is some work that needs to be done on that because I see too much variation from week to week later in the season. It's funny that in the last season that I played in my career, UConn ended up being ranked in the top 15 with a 16-14 record (and an rpi that is not in the top 15). That bugged me since they had they had my 21-8 Red Raiders at #27 despite a top 15 rpi. But here's the funny part, UConn ended up making it to the Sweet 16 (don't remember what their seeding was).

Recruiting. When I started my current 33-year career (first with NH, then with SU and now with Colgate), I put most of my points into recuiting and scouting. NH had prestiges in the 50-60s and I was able to get nothing but 3-star recruits (usually the good ones available in NE and NY, as budget allowed). I took over SU when its prestige was 54 and because of budget, I was able to get a mix of 3- and 4-star recruits - never any 5-star recruits though. With Colgate starting out at 19, I still got the local 3-stars and now with their prestige at 76, it has not changed (even though I do get more interest from 4-star recruits). The reason is, as far as I can tell, is Training Facilities. When I took over Colgate, I switched to Conference Movement and with my emphasis on recruiting and playing fundamentals, I was able to have great success in moving up the relegation chain. But the Training Facilities did not keep up (even with a couple of improvements). I would start off with a rating of 3 which was pretty good for the Patriot League (prestige=1) but now in the Big East (prestige=5), a rating of 5 really sucks. SU, by contrast, was and still sitting at 10 - they have had no problems getting interest in the best recruits. By the way, I have basically ignored in the in-game recruit rankings in favor my own analysis that emphasize the types of players I want for my team (generally great handling and defense with good shooting abilities). Some of the best players I have had (including a couple of AllAmer) had rankings in the 200s nationally.

As an aside, I want to publically acknowledge Brain again for developing such a masterful game. There had been times in the past month in following real-life college hoops (and SU) that it felt like watching a FBCB season. I would sometimes say to myself that the real-life season is matching pretty well with FBCB.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Michael, I am gald (sic) to see you playing this great game. Here are my thoughts to your questions.
Michael? :eek:

[QuikSand]

Michael? :eek:

Sounds weird, doesn't it?

[Buccaneer]

Sorry, just a carryover from IHOF. FOFC is not IHOF.

[Franklinnoble]

Sorry, just a carryover from IHOF. FOFC is not IHOF.

IHOF = Fucking Elitists
FOFC = Fucking Elitists, and those who wish they were Fucking Elitists

[Balldog]

Anyone know if there is any kind of penalty for changing positions of players?

[TargetPractice6]

Anyone know if there is any kind of penalty for changing positions of players?I wouldn't think so. If the player doesn't have the right skill set or physical abilities for that position then I'm sure his play would suffer. However, I do it all the time. I mix players up at the guard and post positions quite frequently. I'll also move and SF up to SG or down to PF, but not as often.

[Peregrine]

I move my players around between positions a lot, and though I do think certain players play better at their chosen positions, it may depend on their particular mix of skills or their athleticism.

[Balldog]

What is sad is I just realized this morning that you can change a players "regular" position in training camp.

[Peregrine]

You can? Hmm, I'll have to try that next time I'm playing the game.

[Balldog]

You can? Hmm, I'll have to try that next time I'm playing the game.

Yeah, that is what sparked my question. Almost every year in the FOFC FBCB I always end up having at least one guy in the starting lineup playing out of position. I didn't know if there was a penalty/reward for changing it.

[Peregrine]

I thought you were asking about just playing people out of position, I'm not sure about changing positions. Can't you check their before and after scores and see if there's any impact?

[Buccaneer]

But doesn't it cost quite a bit of points to change in camp, at the expense of development in key areas?

[Ben E Lou]

What game are you people talking about??? It sure doesn't sound like FBCB. Without opening the game, I'm 99.9% certain that both position switches and playing out of position are purely cosmetic. If the guy has the quickness, ball handling/shooting/perimeter defense skills to play 2, it doesn't matter if his position is listed as 4. Further the position listing can be changed simply in the training screen at any time without any penalty whatsoever. This isn't football or baseball where there is a significant difference between playing LT and RT, or 2B and SS. Even a 1 man generally knows how to post up, drop step, block out, etc. If he's good at it, he's good at it. If he's not, he's not. Position is most important for walk-ons and perhaps for recruiting, not for performance.

[Buccaneer]

I hadn't seen the Training screen in a while and there is no position switches except a drop-down box. It is cosmetic, as SD said, for I don't take legal position in consideration at all when setting Depth Chart. Even for recruiting, it's just a way of sorting and ranking.

[jbmagic]

is heavyreign still supporting the game?


i havent seen him post here or at Fast break Basketball forum for a long time now.

[Icy]

is heavyreign still supporting the game?


i havent seen him post here or at Fast break Basketball forum for a long time now.

I know he has fixed some stuff for the fofc fbcb league when we had any issue, but i that was emailing him directly. I think he is not supporting the game anymor eon the forums. It's really sad as FBCB is probably one of the best text sims ever made and i would love that he could keep working on the series to keep improving the game. also he has dissapeard from FOFC forums lately, i hope all is ok with him and this is just because he is bussy with work etc.

[albionmoonlight]

Reminds me of the time I wasn't paying enough attention to keeping all of my positions filled and ended up with an abundance of talented centers and power forwards and ONE decent ball handling guard. I played my shortest, quickest center at shooting guard, and he got KILLED that season in turnovers.

Even though my record sucked, that season made me like the game even more. It was SO realistic. I think I'll fire it up right now.

[Balldog]

I know he has fixed some stuff for the fofc fbcb league when we had any issue, but i that was emailing him directly. I think he is not supporting the game anymor eon the forums. It's really sad as FBCB is probably one of the best text sims ever made and i would love that he could keep working on the series to keep improving the game. also he has dissapeard from FOFC forums lately, i hope all is ok with him and this is just because he is bussy with work etc.

I agree but the game is 3 years old or so, so I don't think we should expect much more support. For those years he didn't an incredible job, you could report something and he would fix it in no time and post a patch. HR did a hell of a job, if there is ever a FBCB 2 I am buying it.

[Buccaneer]

This is one very few games ever that I perceive of not being improvable with a new version. It is near perfect as it is (speaking of the SP version, of course). The game has the best "one more turn" addiction of any text sims and flows perfectly from month to month. If hadnpt got back into OOTP5 this summer, I would have continued with FBCB as I did for most of last year.

[Radii]

There are some multiplayer enhancements that I wish we could get in at this point but in the early days of FOFC FBCB HR did an amazing job supporting the game and getting us running smoothly.

[kingnebwsu]

FBCB is a blast and (to me) is the best NCAA hoops game ever made. FBCB would be awesome, even with minimal improvements.

I still wish I had more control over the actual gameplay part of it. I never seemed to get a grip on what everything did and so forth. It's like, I'd re-sim a game and make small changes to see what impact they had. It seems like sometimes they didn't have much of an effect or that sometimes I'd max out 3-point shots and they wouldn't shoot very many. I guess the D being played could have affected that (shrug).

Just some post-FBCB thoughts :)

[John Galt]

This is one very few games ever that I perceive of not being improvable with a new version. It is near perfect as it is (speaking of the SP version, of course). The game has the best "one more turn" addiction of any text sims and flows perfectly from month to month. If hadnpt got back into OOTP5 this summer, I would have continued with FBCB as I did for most of last year.

While I loved the game and have sung its praises many times, I think a new, evolutionary version would be great. Some of the weak spots of the game were assistant coach hiring (constant turnover and bad bidding structure), foreign player recruiting (even patched, it requires a house rule to avoid exploit ease of getting top foreign players), and scheduling AI (I just stopped scheduling my own games because it was too easy too exploit). Features I think that could be added that wouldn't disrupt the balance of the game include: offensive and defensive styles affect attributes, player transfers, more detailed interaction in recruiting, better offensive gameplanning and styles, pipeline recruiting from certain areas, more developed job progression (more connections than just alma matter), and NCAA punishment. I'm sure there are other areas that I've forgotten since I haven't played in a few months now. It was one of my ATF games, but I still think a new evolutionary, not revolutionary, version of the game would be fantastic.

[Buccaneer]

JG, I understand and accept your list. "Near perfect" was just the fanboy in me and while I believe there won't be any more changes in SP, I am willing to accept it as is. I would go with the common refrain that "it doesn't matter who develops a college hoops game, I want to see 1..2..3.." but I haven't seen anyone match the simple elegance in a text sim as well as Brian with FBCB.

[Buccaneer]

As have been playing FBCB a lot again, I seem to see a formula for landing a recruit:

July: Add to List-Evaluate
Aug: Head Coach and Assistant Coach visit
Sept: If he shows "Very High", Campus, Head Coach and Assistant Coach visit
Oct: Head Coach and Assistant Coach visit
Nov: 9 times out of 10, he will commit

[Buccaneer]

ARGGGHHHHHHHH. For the first time in my 46-season career, I reached the championship game and when I hit Sim Game, it gave me an Out of Range error and the game crashed. This was the first time I had a crash and it came at the most extreme inopportune time. :mad:

[Radii]

that sucks!!!


I've had that happen to me before in our online league a couple of times. From what those who have simmed a ton more than I have tell me, most likely it is due to one of the teams running out of players due to some combination of injuries/foul outs during the game. What a crappy time to have that happen :(

[Buccaneer]

Thanks for the thought, Radii. I don't know what to do now. The last save was just before the conference tournament and I do want to continue this career. I feel that if I have a team good enough to reach the final 4, should I try to duplicate that? I hate to replay games for that's not my style but...

[RPI-Fan]

What the HECK do you need to do to get moved up with "Limited Conference Movement"... I'm coaching my created RPI team (who started with 0 prestige in America East), and have steadily improved, but usually with some ups-and-downs. But now I've enjoyed a tremendous run of success... 6-straight 20-win seasons, 6-straight regular season titles, 2-straight conference tourney titles, and last year advanced to the 2nd Round of the NCAA's.

Why am I not getting moved up???

RPI Historical Performances

Season W L CW CL Rank RPI Prs Result
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2028 23 10 12 4 90 113 44 Loss in NCAA Tourney Round 2
2027 26 6 13 3 82 124 41 Loss in NCAA Tourney Round 1
2026 26 5 13 3 74 113 37 Loss in NIT Round 1
2025 22 8 11 5 126 211 35 No Postseason
2024 22 9 10 6 127 191 32 No Postseason
2023 22 7 13 3 123 192 32 No Postseason
2022 18 12 8 8 195 278 29 No Postseason
2021 14 15 10 6 306 306 31 No Postseason
2020 18 12 8 8 153 249 33 No Postseason
2019 24 8 11 5 82 111 36 Loss in NCAA Tourney Round 1
2018 25 7 12 4 81 125 30 Loss in NIT Round 1
2017 24 8 12 4 89 134 25 Loss in NIT Preliminary Round
2016 17 12 6 10 156 197 19 No Postseason
2015 20 10 10 6 111 155 20 No Postseason
2014 24 8 12 4 81 107 18 Loss in NIT Round 1
2013 23 9 11 5 98 121 12 Loss in NCAA Tourney Round 1
2012 19 11 11 5 148 221 6 No Postseason
2011 9 20 5 11 324 324 0 No Postseason
2010 6 22 3 13 325 325 0 No Postseason
2009 4 24 1 15 327 327 0 No Postseason
2008 4 24 3 13 326 326 0 No Postseason

[Buccaneer]

You have to be the clear #1 team in your conference (no ties) AND there have to be a clear relegator from the conference you are designated to move into. It is a domino effect and even with full conference movement (where I occassionally play), sometime there's not room to move. I imagine with limited movement, that becomes much more stringent.

[RPI-Fan]

So, just keep racking up conference titles and eventually I'll move up? I think if/when I get to 50 prestige, I'll manually make a move. Would that seem reasonable to you?

[Buccaneer]

It does, as long as you can bring down a valid replacement.

[raccoon]

Hi folks, since I'm new to FBCB, i want to know how you're regulate the training. Did you train their main attributes in which each player has a lot of talent, or play the talent no role for you?

Sorry for my english.

[Swaggs]

Hi folks, since I'm new to FBCB, i want to know how you're regulate the training. Did you train their main attributes in which each player has a lot of talent, or play the talent no role for you?

Sorry for my english.

I've played FBCB over 200 solo seasons, through a number of different league files, and another 20-25 in the online league and I have never done anything but used the reccomendations from the staff. I think that is what most of the guys in the online league do, as well.

[Icy]

I have not played it for a while, since i left the FOFC online league, but i used to click on staff recommendation and then tweak it moving a few points for some players with high potential in a rating i thought was good for my system.

[raccoon]

Jeah, the same goes for me. Recommendation - eventually one or two small changes - and thats it.

[Buccaneer]

I do it differently (i.e., not use recommend). There are only 6 attributes that mean something: INS, SHT, HAN, PRD, PSD and COND. Depending on the position group (C/PF, SF, SG/PG), you load up on 3 of them with all 10 and leave the rest 0. Which 3 depends upon the potential and stamina. They still will grow in other areas but you can max out the fundamental attributes, even beyond what their potential says.

It is gamey and this was one of the changes we suggested a while back:

5. Training phase - Despite my propensity to create elaborate spreadsheets analyzing recruits and roster players, this is the one area I wish I had more information on the actual screen to make decisions on how to fill in the boxes. The one thing I am always having to spend time on is seeing if the ratings are already maxed out for the potential. It becomes a bit of a chore. Also, this is another part that can be a little gamey. For all of my starters and backups (future starters), I almost go with 10-10-10 in the key areas and leave the rest 0. Additionally, for red-shirts, I always go 10 on condition and 10 in the two key development areas. I usually get real good improvements out of my roster every training (I always track pre-training and post-training ratings in my weighted spreadsheet).

I had not tried to go with recommend but I wouldn't be surprised if it yielded the same results.

[raccoon]

Interesting. I think I give it a try ... :) ... but what about the academics? Run your players not in danger to be suspended due to their academics?

Recently, another two questions came me in mind:

1) who would you prefer, a player with extraordinary basketball-stats and low academics, or on the other hand, a player with superb academics, but a little bit lower stats?

2) as Head Coach of a mid-level prestige team, whats more important to you, a better recruiting staff or more recruiting money?

I try the golden middle.

[Groundhog]

One thing I've noticed (that I like a great deal) is that turnovers aren't as big an issue as they used to be. I mean, I still don't want my guys turning the ball over, but I'm also not straight-up ignoring guards with poor hand ratings if they excel in enough other areas.

I also like the increased fatigue rate based on the tempo, frustrating as it is to keep my 3/10 stamina rated C on the court in my uptempo gameplan. Much more realistic. I also love that there are now 2-star guys worth looking at, if it comes down to that. I played a St. John's team last night that was starting a 600+ rated guy at SG who as a junior was looking like a guy who should've been rated as a top-50 recruit. You just didn't see that in the last version.

Definitely seems that there has been some deeper changes to the game engine too. The lineup I'm running right now - 4 starters nearly maxed out in 3pt, 1 big guy with high INS/SHT ratings, good HND ratings throughout - would have flat out dominated in the last version of the game. As it is right now I'm struggling at times and have been blown out by lesser-competition on several occasions this current season. It appears the problem is that, despite the high ratings in 3PT and SHT that my guys have, the lack of a skilled passer (something I've always had except for this season) is making it harder to get good shots for guys. For every game I have where I shoot the lights out from deep, there are another two where I'm sub-30%.

I've gone 35-1 and won the national championship with teams less talented than this one, so it definitely seems to me that things are more challenging.

[dawgfan]

A few questions as I'm just getting into this game (finally). I've played several seasons now, and I feel like I don't have a good handle on the following things:

- Redshirts: Obviously there are no issues redshirting guys who say they are willing to do so. What are the penalties for trying to redshirt guys who don't indicate a willingness to do so? Do they complain about playing time and become unhappy during their redshirt year?

- Transfers: Is there any strategy involved in making offers to potential transfers? I guess I've yet to field a team with high enough prestige to attract high level guys that I'd actually want on my roster, because I've never once landed a guy I offered. Is there any penalty in offering multiple kids when you have only 1 open roster spot? Is there any way of influencing their decision, or is it simply offer them and hope your team prestige and recruiting prowess are high enough? Do we know what factors go into their decision, i.e. do they look at your roster and project how much they'd play?

- Assistant coaches: I don't have a great handle on how assistants make their decisions on which jobs to take. Is it a combination of salary and team prestige? I've found I always have to offer quite a bit more salary than they list as their minimum in order to land a guy, like 20-40% more. Does it appear to be a sliding scale, i.e. the higher prestige my school, the less money I have to offer above his minimum in order to land him?

Also, I take it from this thread that all of the coaching attributes are taken into consideration in the various aspects of the game, i.e. it's not just my head coach recruiting rating that is a factor, but all of my assistants. Can I make the following assumptions:

- Recruiting: Head coach rating is the most weighted factor, followed by the recruiting coordinator, followed by the other two assistants
- Scouting: Head coach rating is the most weighted factor, followed by the scouting director, followed by the other two assistants
- Offensive & defensive development: Head coach rating is the most weighted factor, followed by the assistant coach, followed by the other two assistants

Given that there is a difference in the color ratings of my recruits as I'm recruiting them and then when they are on my roster as freshmen, am I correct in assuming that this is due to the scouting rating differences between my recruiting coordinator (weighted higher during recruiting) and my scouting director (weighted higher looking at my current roster)?


- Recruiting factors: This thread has been a big help in fleshing out the factors involved. I have to say that this area of the game isn't my favorite - I'd rather have more feedback on the factors that the player values, and I'd like to be able to put more scholarship offers out there than I have room for (this becomes especially vexing when I have a guy I'm pretty sure is going to leave early for the draft).

I've generally used the strategy of going after guys that are not being pursued by programs with significantly higher prestige ratings. Lately I've been more aggressive in trying to beat out teams with prestige ratings that are a little higher than mine (up to 10 points or so) but with coaches that have much lower recruiting rating attributes, but even going hard after those kids with visits and campus offers, I haven't had success beating out those higher prestige schools. After reading this thread, I suspect distance has been the deciding factor.

Thanks for any feedback - really having fun with the game, just trying to get a better grasp on how it works and how I should be tailoring my strategies.

[lcjjdnh]

Recruiting: Head coach rating is the most weighted factor, followed by the recruiting coordinator, followed by the other two assistants
- Scouting: Head coach rating is the most weighted factor, followed by the scouting director, followed by the other two assistants
- Offensive & defensive development: Head coach rating is the most weighted factor, followed by the assistant coach, followed by the other two assistants

Given that there is a difference in the color ratings of my recruits as I'm recruiting them and then when they are on my roster as freshmen, am I correct in assuming that this is due to the scouting rating differences between my recruiting coordinator (weighted higher during recruiting) and my scouting director (weighted higher looking at my current roster)?


Let me preface this by saying I believe this is how it worked in the original game. It could be different in FBCB2 (which is what I think you are playing). Anyone with better knowledge should feel free to correct me.

1.) My understanding is that the assistants only mattered for the tasks related to the position you hired them for. That is, only your recruiting rating and the recruiting coordinator's rating matter for recruiting; the recruiting ratings of your scouting director and assistant are irrelevant. Same goes for scouting (i.e. only your scouting rating and your scout's rating matters).

2.) Re: Scouting, I believe scouting error only applies during the recruiting phase (and, as above, is only based on your and your scout's ratings). Once players are on a roster, their "true" rating is revealed.

After typing this up, I did a search and found this:

For player's already on rosters, the game lists the actual current ratings. While not the most realistic, storing the scouted ratings for each player for each team wouldn't have been good for the overall performance. The game is already pushing the limits on memory usage.

For recruits, the ratings you see are a reflection of the combined abilities of the head coach and the scouting director. They have an equal contribution in determining the ratings.

In addition, here are two more helpful threads from the original game:
http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=17315
Fast Break College Basketball Full Version Is Out - Front Office Football Central (http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=13179)

[Izulde]

From my understanding, in FBCB 2K10, you *can't* redshirt guys unless they're willing to be.

[Thomkal]

Our FOFC league using this sim is still alive and very active if anyone is interested in joining. We have just cut the nets down and will be doing the first actions of the new season this Wed:

FOFC FBCB (http://www.fbcb-fofc.com/)

[Lathum]

From my understanding, in FBCB 2K10, you *can't* redshirt guys unless they're willing to be.

It seems this is correct, is there a work around for this?

[k0ruptr]

the work around would be if you go into the league files and edit the player and force him to redshirt. I think you can still do that.

bad thing if you do this though, you may also catch a glimpse of his real attributes if you play with anything other than 1-100 ratings.

[britrock88]

Dawgfan,

All of the above answers seem to be accurate. In addition:

WRT transfers: Generally, if the Interest tab says the player has NO interest, you won't sign him. So I feel fine offering all of the guys with green or blue potential just in case something persuades them to come to my school... which I don't think has ever happened. So realistically, you have to go after players showing interest in you to sign anybody in the transfer period. As far as making extra offers is concerned, I think the game treats this as it does assistant coaches -- there is a hidden ranking of the available people, and the first person to accept an offer takes it, and all following offers are canceled. That much works out fine. Otherwise, it's just offer and hope.

Assistants: I, too, have to offer outsize raises to assistants compared to their expected salaries, and I wish I knew a way around this.

Colors: your scout is not 100% accurate in the recruiting period; when players join your roster, their true ratings are revealed.

Recruiting: yeah, don't fight teams with outstanding offers and 15 extra prestige points. The best returns on investment in recruiting that I have found are these: 1) evaluating as many people as you can in July, 2) going hard after your offers (as many visits as you can afford for each recruit each month), 3) going after guys with decent academic numbers that aren't quite qualified (my cut-offs are, generally, 2.25 and 800).

[Lathum]

3) going after guys with decent academic numbers that aren't quite qualified (my cut-offs are, generally, 2.25 and 800).

Can you elaborate?

[britrock88]

This works under the assumption that CPU teams shy away from nonqualified players (generally true). The qualification cutoffs (which don't apply to JC players) are a sliding scale -- roughly speaking, 3.0/800 and 2.0/1000 are the baseline qualifiers. Interpolating, 2.5/900 qualifies, and so on. And a player must have a 2.0 and an 800 at a minimum (no 1.5/1400 types).

That said, there are two different kinds of unqualified recruits: those that are a good test score away from qualifying (eg, 2.4/850), and those that only have a prayer (2.0/900, 2.7/530, so on). GPAs don't change, so far as I know, and I rarely expect 2.0s that have already score 900s to up their scores to 1000 to qualify later in the process. And recruits with terrible scores may never improve their scores (though some do). But for the 2.4/850 type that's just looking for 70 points on his SATs, you should start contacting early and build a lead in interest while CPU teams are scared away by his as-yet nonqualifying status.

[dawgfan]

This works under the assumption that CPU teams shy away from nonqualified players (generally true). The qualification cutoffs (which don't apply to JC players) are a sliding scale -- roughly speaking, 3.0/800 and 2.0/1000 are the baseline qualifiers. Interpolating, 2.5/900 qualifies, and so on. And a player must have a 2.0 and an 800 at a minimum (no 1.5/1400 types).

That said, there are two different kinds of unqualified recruits: those that are a good test score away from qualifying (eg, 2.4/850), and those that only have a prayer (2.0/900, 2.7/530, so on). GPAs don't change, so far as I know, and I rarely expect 2.0s that have already score 900s to up their scores to 1000 to qualify later in the process. And recruits with terrible scores may never improve their scores (though some do). But for the 2.4/850 type that's just looking for 70 points on his SATs, you should start contacting early and build a lead in interest while CPU teams are scared away by his as-yet nonqualifying status.
Funny you should bring this up - I've always just recruited qualified prospects and never looked at the non-qualified ones. As I was checking out the new batch of recruits in my latest season, I was trying to find "Mr. Basketball" for Wisconsin (since I'm currently coaching Wisconsin) and he didn't show up, and it dawned on me that he was probably in the non-qualified pool. Sure enough - he's a 5-star PF with a 2.4 GPA and an 840 test score, so I'm highly tempted to at least put him on my call list and see if he can get a qualifying test score.

It also answers the question I've had about why some prospects would appear later in the process that I hadn't seen earlier - I'm assuming it's because they hadn't initially been qualified, but gained a qualifying test score along the way and were no longer being filtered out of my default recruiting views.

[dawgfan]

Follow-up - I put that PF on my call list, but didn't offer him the first month. I would have if he'd been qualified - had terrific stats and was a 5-star guy. The following month he got his qualifying test score and graded out as a yellow current/blue potential, but Minnesota had already offered. I figured I still had a good chance given that he was an in-state guy, my prestige was 20 points higher and me and my recruiting coordinator had much higher recruiting ratings and I offered him and did all the visits every month, but he still picked Minnesota.

Lesson learned I guess - if a kid like that is close to qualifying and is otherwise good enough, go ahead and risk offering that scholarship. Probably a pretty good strategy for when you're at a lower-ranked prestige school.

Of course, I won my first Championship in my season I played last night, so I'm not lacking for prospects that are interested in my school...

[dannynoonan]

Glad to see some action on this thread...I just discovered this game a few months ago and have found it to be the best of its kind by far. Far more realistic, far more challenging, far more entertaining than, say, the well-intentioned DDSCB2.

If there's one thing I'd like to see changed, it'd be a more realistic transfer mechanism. In my experience, players just don't drop a level -- they're often only interested in transferring to a school in a conference of similar prestige. Whereas in real life, the player who couldn't cut it in a big conference coming back home to play for a mid-major is a big part of basketball.

I'd love it if some kid who couldn't cut it at West Virginia because his 35 strength wouldn't work in the Big East transferred to play for me at Morehead State, where his strength wouldn't matter as much but his INS and PSD would allow him to dominate the OVC.

Other than that, it's one of the few games I've found that's really challenging in terms of being hard to master. It usually takes me a month or two to fine-tune my pace, motion and 3PS settings, and sometimes I never do.

If anyone has any tips or metrics they've found useful for doing that on a year-to-year basis, beyond what's mentioned at the top of the thread, it'd make for interesting reading.

[dawgfan]

The issue with transfers relates the main issue I have with recruiting in FBCB2, which is that I wish there was some feedback from the players on what they were looking for. I'm guessing Brian didn't go there because he's trying to keep the game footprint smaller and less of a resource-hog to run. But I do get frustrated with the transfer section because it's so limited and the decisions the players make seems so random.

I'd love to see more detailed playing strategies - I'm still a novice when it comes to basketball strategy, so I'm reluctant to dive into micromanaging my team rather than mostly relying on the recommended settings, but I'd like in my next career to start getting more hands-on.

[dawgfan]

I'm perusing the FBCB forums in greater detail and re-reading this thread to pick up more strategies on gameplanning and whatnot. I prefer quick-simming rather than coaching my games, but I've reached the point where I think I need to start customizing my settings rather than relying on the "recommend" button for everything - maybe I just have outsized expectations, but I feel like my teams are underperforming if I let the AI choose my strategies for me.

Given that this game has a significant multiplayer component to it, I'm not surprised that there's not a large amount of strategy advice posted on the forums, but I'll take any additional advice people have. I'll start reading the dynasty section over at Brian's site and see if there's some good stuff in there.

Part of my problem is that I'm not as well-versed in basketball strategy as I am football, so I'm having to learn on the fly. It's a testament to the game - I'm having a lot of fun and care enough about it to really learn the nuances of how to succeed in it.

[muns]

I'm perusing the FBCB forums in greater detail and re-reading this thread to pick up more strategies on gameplanning and whatnot. I prefer quick-simming rather than coaching my games, but I've reached the point where I think I need to start customizing my settings rather than relying on the "recommend" button for everything - maybe I just have outsized expectations, but I feel like my teams are underperforming if I let the AI choose my strategies for me.

Given that this game has a significant multiplayer component to it, I'm not surprised that there's not a large amount of strategy advice posted on the forums, but I'll take any additional advice people have. I'll start reading the dynasty section over at Brian's site and see if there's some good stuff in there.

Part of my problem is that I'm not as well-versed in basketball strategy as I am football, so I'm having to learn on the fly. It's a testament to the game - I'm having a lot of fun and care enough about it to really learn the nuances of how to succeed in it.

Not that you dont already know Dawgfan but in case any new people are looking over this, most of the things that work in this thread apply to FBCB 2003. The exploits that are talked about in here (ie the steals and OOC scheduling exploits) arent valid in FBCB 2010 as they were fixed. If you try/ do them they wont work out too well for ya....

I also think you hit the nail on the head with people not sharing due to the MP aspect of the game....
Ive always found mixing and matching to be fun until I got the hang of what I was doing but thats me (I have a hard time with directions).

Here is the run down for all of them from Brian on the Strategy Part. Most of it is already out there, but in case some new people missed it.

Pace: A faster pace will result in more possessions per game and more energy used. If the other team is not as deep this can be used to wear them down some. Teams running a higher pace will also be more likely to settle for the first shot they can find.

Motion: The idea behind the motion setting is how structured of an offense do you want to run. 10 is like the Princeton offense whereas 0 is more like the average Washington offense the last few years where you give your players the freedom to do what they want.

3P Usage: Increase or decrease your teams likelihood of shooting 3s

Focus: Used to try and force the ball inside or outside. Players try harder to create shots in these regions.

Press: Full court press. Players burn extra energy running a press. The benefit is forced turnovers that mostly turn into fast break points for your team. The cost is increased fouls and the chance that the opposing team may get their own fast break.

Trap: Half court trapping. This is kind of a lesser risk/reward version of the press. Again players burn extra energy and create turnovers with lower odds of a fast break. The other team will get more open shots.

Double Inside/Outside: How often do you want to help against an elite player in these areas. The cost is more open shots for other players but you can force the ball out of a star player's hands more often.

Double teams should work for any player. It looks at whether the other team has an advantage or not so if you have a strong defender he's going to have to be guarding a star for it to kick in. If you have a weak defender than it is going to kick in against far more players

My 2 cents on some of this stuff

Pace- Higher end you need guys that are athletic and have stamina

Motion- Again if you have athletic guys who have handles I would put this number on the low area, especially if you have some guards that can get in the lane.

3's- im sure you get this one

Focus- the same as above

Press- Again athletic guys that have stamina and can defend (steals)

The last one is the one that most people are quiet about :)

[henry296]

On the strategy page, what about Pressure? It seems like that AI changes that for me sometimes. Is it passed on my player or their player? How does it automatically change based on subs?

[muns]

On the strategy page, what about Pressure? It seems like that AI changes that for me sometimes. Is it passed on my player or their player? How does it automatically change based on subs?

henry forgive me as its been a long day and im not sure I fully understand what you are saying here. Can you rephrase?

[dawgfan]

Thanks muns, that's a great base to work from. I'll play around with customizing my settings for my next season and see how it goes.

You still playing SimulatedSports basketball?

[dawgfan]

A couple more questions for fellow FBCB gamers:

- If you choose more than one defense to practice during training camp, does it evenly split the improvements, and do you get the same total amount of improvement but split across the number of defenses you are practicing? For example, if you train in one defense you go from 50 to 81 (I think I'm remembering that correctly); if you choose two defenses, would they go from 50 to 65/66? And if you continue to play those two defenses during the season, would they improve at half the rate you would if you were playing one defense?

- Anyone have a link to a good strategy primer on different basketball defenses, what they are trying to do and what types of players make them work the best?

I ran my season last night off of my own settings rather than the AI suggestions with the exception of the defense. My preference would be to run Man defense, but most of the time my team just doesn't have the defensive attributes and athleticism to really make it work I'm afraid.

[henry296]

henry forgive me as its been a long day and im not sure I fully understand what you are saying here. Can you rephrase?

When coaching a game and you click Team Strategy there is an option for pressure. It is where you pick who guards who. It seems to default to High, but seems to change even if I've got the coaching set to Human.

[henry296]

I've got a recruiting question. At what point do you give up? I had two recruits where I was second on the top 5 schools with High Interest. I kept with them offering the most recruiting possible and lost out. I'm not surprised, just wondering if I should've cut bait earlier or was it just a little bad luck.

[HeavyReign]

I'd say a safe strategy is if you've used your campus visit and still aren't on top then you won't be hurting yourself too often by moving on. There is still a chance to get the player but the odds aren't in your favor.

[Radii]

I've got a recruiting question. At what point do you give up? I had two recruits where I was second on the top 5 schools with High Interest. I kept with them offering the most recruiting possible and lost out. I'm not surprised, just wondering if I should've cut bait earlier or was it just a little bad luck.


Assuming the #1 team on the list has offered a scholarship, the only time I don't give up immediately is if I made a late offer on a player and my team prestige is significantly higher than the team ahead of me. Any other scenario I can think of, if I have made an offer and done all the visits I am allowed to/can afford, if at any point I fall behind another team who has offered a scholarship then I give up immediately and look for someone else more favorable.

[Scoobz0202]

Same as Radii. If their prestige is better, or close to even, and I've done pretty much all I can I get out. If their prestige is 10+ lower then MAYBE I'll try again if I REALLY want that player.

[LloydLungs]

Couple seasons ago I managed to steal a top 100 guy where I was 2nd to another team that was offering. Really needed a SF, he had great grades, I had a few fallbacks lined up, so I just said what the hell and went all out. I'm not sure that's ever happened for me before and I bet it won't happen again anytime soon. Usually it's wisest just to give up.

[dawgfan]

So as I'm getting more familiar with the sim, I'm diving more into playing with my game settings for each game.

* As an aside, let me just express my appreciation to Brian for creating such a fun sim - I'm having the most fun with sports gaming that I've had since TCY first came out, though I'm sure my wife has a different opinion ;)

I don't know if I'm actually giving my team a better chance of winning by doing so, but it at least feels like I'm really starting to coach my team instead of just being a glorified recruiting coordinator, so it's helping my feeling of immersion in the sim.

I wanted to bounce some stuff off of you fellow FBCB coaches and see if what I'm doing is on the right track:

- First thing I started doing is adjusting my press and trap numbers based on the opponent's hands and passing ratings - the lower their hands and passing, the higher I've been bumping up my press and trap settings. What I'm still unclear on is differentiating between pressing and trapping - which attributes on my squad are most important for each of these, and which ratings on my opponents are most vulnerable to them? In which cases should I be pressing more but not trapping, and vice versa? Am I on the right track thinking that passing is a little more important for beating a trap and handling is a little more important for beating press?

- Second thing I started doing was adjusting my game pace settings, figuring that if my team is deeper and more talented than my opponent, and if my stamina ratings are pretty good, I can bump this up, and conversely if I'm less talented and/or less deep, I should ratchet this down and hope that less possessions give me a greater chance at notching the upset. Am I overlooking other aspects that are important here? If I'm playing at a fast tempo, does ball handling become more important? I also am somewhat conscious of tying my pace settings along with my press and trap settings, i.e. if I'm using high press and trap settings, I'm more wary of bumping my pace way up too for fear of tiring out my team.

- Third thing I started doing is adjusting my offensive focus between "balanced", "inside" and "outside" depending on the offensive skills of my players and the defensive ratings for post defense and perimeter defense of my opponent. This one seems rather self-explanatory, but I wonder if I need to also be looking at things like quickness and strength - I admit I have little idea how those attributes affect this sim.

- Fourth thing I started doing last night is to really individualize which players on my offense that I have as my focus players depending on the defensive attributes of my opponent's starters. This also seems rather obvious and self-explanatory, though of course it probably requires a better understanding of the various offensive attributes and how they work in this sim than I currently possess, but for teams where I have multiple good offensive options it seems like something I should be doing.

- Fifth thing I also started doing last night is sometimes tweaking the recommended settings for doubling inside and doubling outside depending on what I perceive as the offensive strengths of my opponent.

Some of the areas where I'm still foggy on are:

- Motion: I know that this has to do with how structured your offense is (I'm imagining greater amounts of screens and player movement the higher this setting), but I'm less clear on which is more important here - hands or passing (or both?) I'm not yet at a point where my teams have superstar offensive players at most positions that can create their own shots via a high "inside" rating, so I don't like to go super low on my motion setting, but I'm also not sure how to finesse this setting and so I generally just go with the recommended setting.

- Zone defenses: I have a very basic understanding of zone defenses, but that's about it. Tell me if I'm on the right track here:

2-3 zone: Mostly intended to pack the middle and stifle strong post offenses, at the risk of being burned from the perimeter and back-door plays

3-2 zone: More emphasis on defending the perimeter at the expense of putting the interior defense at greater risk

2-1-2 zone: I'm not familiar with this one; I'd guess it's a wrinkle on the 2-3 zone that is intended to make it harder for offenses to break down the middle of the zone by penetrating in to the key?

1-3-1 zone: My understanding on this one is you put a long-armed defender at the top of the zone to harass passing lanes, but I don't really know the other traits of this one (I should be more familiar with it given that Oregon State runs this)

Matchup zone: Another one I should have a better understanding of given that ASU under Sendek uses this - I think this is a complex hybrid of zone and man principles?

Ideally I'm trying to recruit so that my team is filled with good post defenders at the 4 & 5 and good perimeter defenders at the other 3 spots and just go with a man defense, but until I get to that point, I'm not savvy enough on defensive strategy to know which zone or zones to run based off the attributes of my players. I get a little frustrated when I hit the recommend button prior to training camp and it picks one zone defense, and then after training camp it picks a different one.

Also, I'd appreciated any feedback on what people do that customize their training camp settings, as I still use the recommend button for that. I know some people focus on a few core areas like academics, inside, post or perimeter defense (depending on position), hands/passing for PGs, etc.

Hoping there are enough single-player users out there willing to talk strategy, as I know a lot of you play in multi-player leagues and are reluctant to give away your secrets...

[OldGiants]

I've been thinking and testing many of the questions you raised above. So far, I haven't drawn many conclusions about strategy except for:

1) pressing and trapping. Based on my defensively heavy St. Peter's team, the suggested defense is trapping, not pressing. My team is much better in PSD and PRD than steals and shot blocking and I figured the higher the PRD the more the trapping would work. I think this means PRD vs. passing, as you suggest. My confirmation is that other teams get lots of turnovers, while my steal totals aren't all that gaudy.

2) I have been testing training camp using the notion that Freshmen should all get 10 in conditioning/athleticism category. At crappy St. Pete's last years frosh went up 22, 26 and 28 in stamina. At more fashionable UVa, it was 48, 34, 20 and 18. There appears to be a direct link between potential and the stamina/ath increases. That explains the higher growth in the blue UVa kids.

My next good results testing is try to get the most in a split between PSD and INS for bigs (after attending to scholastic needs for those who I want to play). Guards get PRD and HND or shooting training. SFs get a fill-in where needed, but I almost never go after SFs preferring to putting misfits at that spot.

If I don't need a Frosh to play, I give him nothing in academic, even if he is not redshirting.

3) defensive formations. I plan to run some exhib games to see who plays where in the 2-1-2 and matchup zone options. This is not clear to me. I have yet to play a game out--that being my invariable choice for all sports sims except FM where I have to do it (and that is the reason I tend to lose interest in FM).

[sovereignstar v2]

Why is this ghetto thread still getting bumped? All-in-one thread, baby. :)

[britrock88]

A couple more questions for fellow FBCB gamers:

- If you choose more than one defense to practice during training camp, does it evenly split the improvements, and do you get the same total amount of improvement but split across the number of defenses you are practicing? For example, if you train in one defense you go from 50 to 81 (I think I'm remembering that correctly); if you choose two defenses, would they go from 50 to 65/66? And if you continue to play those two defenses during the season, would they improve at half the rate you would if you were playing one defense?


Training camp defenses... the skill level doesn't dissipate at that rate, although it does to an extent. Of the top of my head, if you can train 1 defense to an 85, you can train 2 defenses to a 79 and 3 defenses into a 70. The skill for a defensive setup will always increase 1 point per game for any defense you have enabled during the season.

On 1-3-1, it's basically a passing lane-clogging defense that, IMO, favors small, quick, and long teams. Put a long guy at the top, a big in the middle of the lane, two wings on the wings (derp), and a quick guy to roam the baseline as a combo wing-post defender. Triangular dynamics can involve a wing, the post guy, and the baseline rover with unbalanced offenses.

[rtruesdell]

- Anyone have a link to a good strategy primer on different basketball defenses, what they are trying to do and what types of players make them work the best?

Here are a couple of sites I have bookmarked which each explain defenses:

http://www.hooptactics.com
Basketball Defenses, Coach's Clipboard Playbook (http://www.coachesclipboard.net/BasketballDefenses.html)

(The last site really gets into some detail!)

[dawgfan]

Here are a couple of sites I have bookmarked which each explain defenses:

http://www.hooptactics.com
Basketball Defenses, Coach's Clipboard Playbook (http://www.coachesclipboard.net/BasketballDefenses.html)

(The last site really gets into some detail!)
Awesome, thank you!

[dawgfan]

Well, starting to get frustrated again with my strategy tinkering. I really started getting into customizing my settings and tailoring my strategies per opponent 5 seasons ago, and it seemed to work wonders as I took what I think was a moderately talented team that lost their most talented player for the season in January to academic suspension, and guided them to 30-7 and 13-5 in the Pac-10 and all the way to the Elite 8 in the tournament. I felt encouraged, like I was making a definite positive impact on my results.

But since then, with more talented teams, I feel I've underachieved:

19-12 (12-6), first round loss
25-10 (13-5), Sweet 16
21-14 (8-10), Sweet 16
21-12 (12-6), 2nd round loss

These were teams that, in my prior career where I was just going with the "recommend" settings, would've been 25-30 win teams getting to the Elite 8 or better.

At some point I think I'm going to take one of my teams and run a bunch of test seasons, tweaking settings and see if I can start really understanding the relationship between the player attributes on my team and how to best maximize those talents via the gameplay settings for me team. Because right now, I feel like I'm actually harming my team's performances.

[Groundhog]

I find that now that I'm bringing in 4 and 5 star talent mostly, I've just settled on settings that I use every season, because generally I'm always bringing in guys with roughly similar skill sets at each position. I'm basically an 8-8-8 for pace-motion-threes, with a balanced offense. Pressing/trapping is entirely dependant on my perimeter player's defensive ratings, but also their (now hidden) foul ratings. I had a SG last season who was a 10 in steals, but also was averaging nearly 4 fouls a game, forcing me to lower my pressing/trapping settings to limit his fouls, as he was far-and-away my best player.

Double teaming down low and outside I don't change game to game and raise or lower these two settings dependant on the PRD/PSD ratings of my starters.

[Groundhog]

Outside of the now-reduced "steals exploit", the best strategy I had with low prestige teams was to recruit a PF or C with high INS and high FT, and basically force feed him the ball (ie. have him set as my only key player). I would always put him on the opposition's weakest post player on D, and set him to pressure to "low", so I could maximize his minutes on the court. Play him alongside another post player with good D and Rebound ratings, have guys on the wing with safe hands and good D ratings (3pt shooting is a bonus), and a PG who doesn't turn it over, and a 6th man combo guard with high SHT/INS ratings and low everything else for instant offense. I found that was the best path to 20-win seasons in small conferences.

[dawgfan]

I definitely need to run some tests to figure out this game. Really frustrating season last night, going 18-14 and bowing out in the first round of the NCAA's with a team that was a pre-season #8 and had a ton of talent. Played Louisiana Tech in the tourney; they didn't have very good post defense (30's and 40's for their big men, lower for their back court), I had good post players (70's and 80's in "Inside"), went to Inside for my offensive focus and my two best post players and was held to 54 points on something like 33% shooting.

I still don't have a very good feel on when I should be dialing up or down my "Motion" settings, or how much variance I should be making to my Gameplay settings per opponent. For example, if I have a pretty good mix of offensive talent between strong Inside post players and good jump shooter/3-point shooter wings and guards, am I better off switching between "Inside", "Balanced" and "Outside" focus depending on the defensive attribute ratings of my opponent's starting five? Should I not be changing up who are my featured offensive players based on match-ups with my opponents and simply go with my best offensive player(s) regardless of opponent defensive ratings?

Should I be varying my press and trap settings by much depending on the ball-handling and passing ratings of my opponents? Depending on my opponent, I've typically varied between 2 and 8 (and every point in between) based on an evaluation of the opposing starting five's hands (for "Press") and passing (for "Trap") seattings. Should I be mostly focusing on my opponent's PG when deciding how much to press and trap? I would think pressing is more focused on the main ball-handler for a team (i.e. the opponent PG's "Hands" rating), whereas trapping would seem to be affecting more of the team's passing skills, but maybe I'm wrong on that? Up until now I've been a little more team-wide focused on choosing my "Press" settings, but in thinking about it more last night, I think maybe I should place most of my weight on this setting on the opponent PG and his handling rating.

Of the 8 seasons so far where I've been very active in adjusting my settings per game, I feel like I've met or exceeded expectations for my team in 2 of those seasons, and underachieved (often by quite a bit) in the other 6. Had a team 3 seasons ago that featured 6 players that were blue in present talent and another 2 that were green. Finished third in the Pac-10 and couldn't get past the Sweet Sixteen.

I'm assuming a big reason why there hasn't been more strategy talk is that those that know the game well are in multi-player leagues and don't want to spill their secrets. Which is why I figure I need to run a lot of tests to see for myself what changing the various settings does in terms of performance, and try to figure out how those changes are influenced by my team's particular ratings.

[dawgfan]

OK, digging back in this thread a bit, I realized I had kind of glossed over this part (from Brian):

Double Inside/Outside: How often do you want to help against an elite player in these areas. The cost is more open shots for other players but you can force the ball out of a star player's hands more often.

Double teams should work for any player. It looks at whether the other team has an advantage or not so if you have a strong defender he's going to have to be guarding a star for it to kick in. If you have a weak defender than it is going to kick in against far more players

And then this comment from muns about it:

The last one is the one that most people are quiet about

I have tweaked these settings a little bit, but now I think I should be paying more attention to it, especially now that I think I understand what it's doing more clearly.

Though, I'd have to say I've been more frustrated overall with my offensive performances as a team than my defensive performances. That may be in part because I'm not really changing recommended training camp settings and thus not necessarily maximizing the areas that really matter for my posts, wings and PGs. The only tweaking I've done in that area is take OldGiants' suggestion and zeroing out academics for freshmen that are buried on my depth chart and re-distributing those settings elsewhere.

[dawgfan]

So after running a few tests, I don't seem to be any clearer on things. Now granted, each test was only 5 seasons, so I don't think my results have a huge degree of statistical significance, but I haven't actually found much difference in results from my various settings - though it should be noted, in not one trial season did the team do as badly as I did when I ran the season for real and was tweaking strategies per game. So I guess the one thing I learned is, either I was remarkably unlucky in that particular system, or whatever I was doing was waaaaaay off.

So I took the save file from the beginning of my last season, and ran these tests:

In each test, I used the recommended settings for depth chart, and let the CPU control my depth chart for the season in the case of injuries; I also used the recommended settings for gameplan and key players, changing the following in each trial:

Default = pure recommended settings, no changes
Inside = recommended settings, but changed focus from "Balanced" to "Inside"
Outside = recommended settings, but changed focus from "Balanced" to "Outside"
Motion 10 = recommended settings, but changed motion from recommended 3 to 10
Motion 0 = recommended settings, but changed motion from recommended 3 to 0

Very little variation in results; the most successful trials (as a group) was actually the "Inside" one - I had my highest average win total, FG%, Adj FG% and PPS (though not my highest scoring avg). The difference though between the Inside trials and the rest was not by much though. And since I didn't have injuries turned off, that was another variable I didn't control for.

Since I haven't yet seen a major difference in results, I'm going to halt my tests for now and get back to playing the game and see if any of my recent reading pays off in better performances for my team. I still feel compelled to adjust settings per game rather than simply run with the recommended settings unchanged per game, but I think I'll dial back the amount of variance I use from that recommended gameplan.

I just want to feel like I'm not hurting my team's success.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Thanks for testing things out. I, too, am struggling with team settings on this version. I feel like I have the most success when letting the computer decide which is something I never did on the old version.

[dannynoonan]

I've had decent success comparing INS ratings to JPS ratings and comparing HND to PAS to get a sense of how far up the motion scale to go. At least it's a starting point that's not the computer recommendation. Usually requires tweaking during nonconference play.

One trick that has occasionally worked in the past (albeit with mid-majors and below) , with a good-scoring big man and guards with low INS and JPS but good 3PA is to set for inside, low pace and high motion. The post gets a lot of points and the guards tend to get better shots on kick-outs from double teams than they do when the offense is set for outside. May go through and do some multiple-season simulations of that particular situation at some point down the road.

[dawgfan]

Well, I may have figured out one of my issues last night - after another season that wasn't living up to expectations in the out of conference portion, early on in conference play I jacked up my pace to 10 since I was playing a USC team that had 5 great starters but no quality depth on their bench. For about the last 10 seasons or so with Cal, I've had high quality depth, and I've recently been customizing my training camp settings to put a higher priority on conditioning, but I've hesitated to bump my pace higher than 8 for some reason, usually ranging between 6-8 depending on the opponent and whether I was playing a high level of press and/or trapping.

I guess because I've had FG % in the .430-.450 range, I was slowing the pace a bit hoping that I would get better, higher percentage shots, but I think I was short-changing the depth on my teams and not factoring in fatigue and my ability to wear-out opponents with superior bench. My offense picked up quite a bit after I did that and I had a 13-3 run in conference, with my only losses (after I bumped up the pace) both by 2 points on the road. I did have trouble with an equally deep and talented Notre Dame team in the Sweet 16, and I'm thinking when I face teams of similar talent I might want to dial back the pace a bit - but then again, maybe not. Can't read too much into one game.

I think I'll run some more tests with my test file bumping up the pace setting to 10 and see if that produces any noticeable changes in results (that test team is also deep and well-conditioned, but I think the recommended pace setting was 7).