Game Date: Apr 4th, 2044
Latest Posts
Forum >> Latest Posts
| 
| 
| ID | Thread | Poster | Date & Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| #22103 | Forum >> Suggestions >> Faster intentional fouls | admin | 03/31/2025 8:39:52 pm |
| Do you guys have particular examples where its to long? What is your expectation in terms of time taken? Usually it's fairly quick, but there is also instances where the offense manages to either dripple or pass out the ball before the foul can be applied and a fair amount of time runs off the clock. Steve |
|||
| #22104 | Forum >> Announcements >> 2044 End of Season coming... | admin | 04/01/2025 8:29:40 pm |
| Please make sure you've done these things... 1. Made your red shirt selections 2. Spent your recruiting points (all carry over points above 10 will be halved for next season) 3. Select Schedule Mode (Up/Down/Any) 4. Setup any rivalry games for next season PLEASE make sure you have your redshirt selections made. I can not undo redshirt decisions after the flip. It causes problems with the databases. Thanks, Steve |
|||
| #22105 | Forum >> Suggestions >> Faster intentional fouls | Twolvesfan21 | 04/02/2025 9:43:12 am |
| In my last conference playoff game with WVU, when we started intentionally fouling it took 9, 4, 6, and 6 seconds again, and I've had other experiences. I think there should be a chance that the offense delays the foul by getting into space, but even then I feel like that usually wouldn't take more than 4-6 seconds, and is also relatively rare compared to just successfully fouling which usually takes about 1-2 seconds. In the aforementioned game for WVU, we took like 25 seconds fouling a bunch because we still had fouls to give and it completely killed any shot we had because it waisted the entire last minute. |
|||
| #22106 | Forum >> Help >> Need Help with My Hardwood Team – 3 Straight Demotions! | gards710 | 04/02/2025 9:57:35 am |
| It's natural to fall down the ladder when you're new and taking over a team but in the higher levels. It started out well because the roster was still living off the talent from the previous regime. But as the bot's recruited players took over and then you came in and had to hone your player evaluation and strategies, that's where you started to struggle because you were playing against a high level without having reached level yourself. The competition will even out compared to your own experience level and then you'll be able to climb back up as you learn and get better. So, in terms of your roster, the first thing I'd do is look at other successful teams and see what they do. That can be the top teams in the game or just the top teams in your conference. I think there is one glaringly obvious thing and you have absolutely wasted a few players by neglecting it. Looks like you've gotten the notice to recruit size, so check. You then need to recruit guys who have the skills for their positions. Point guards should be able to handle the ball and pass the ball, wings should do a bit of everything, bigs should rebound and defend inside primarily, defense is good for everyone. Tactically, I don't see you doing much wrong, but it's also hard when you just simply don't have the talent. I get that you tried this year with Epps and crew, but for next season, you need to evaluate who is actually going to be a part of your future and who is not. Off first impressions, you have a pretty young team, so a lot of these guys could be a part of your future. Milligan and Jannson? Almost have to be part of your future. And given their size and skills, they're perimeter guys. What are Hackney and Farmer good at? They're short, so they have to be perimeter guys, but yet they're not good at handling the ball, not consistent shooters, and not good defenders. Trash. Roland is ok but slow and/or not a good rebounder, combo F. Byers is too small to be a big (eh maybe he grows a tad and can be a small big). Neal - huge but not a good interior defender. Still will have to play as a big for you. Nixon is trash. Love could be decent big, although his overall development isn't good. Kennedy will be good, just not sure where. Zaragosa does not look like a future piece to me with his poor defense and handling and he's destined for the perimeter. Ok so with all that, your roster would breakdown as: Point Guards: Milligan, Nixon Wings: Jannson, Kennedy, Farmer, Hackney, Zaragosa Bigs: Neal, Love, Kennedy?, Byers, Roland? That's too many wings, and as I said, two of them aren't good and not a part of your future. That's one point guard and one of them is bad. Your big depth is okay, but they all have big flaws. Some of them might do fine, or even play well, in LL6, where you will be next season. But my evaluation is of them at a D1 level, which is where most people want to get. You've taken over one of the most successful teams in the game. With that prestige and the head coach, you're already on first base, maybe even second. Recruit good players, play them, develop them. How do you recruit good players? By finding the guys who have the size and who have developed well in the skills that are good for the positions that you want them to play. If you're questioning what that looks like, again, look at successful teams. Now there's not only one way to have success in this game, and the type of team you build and the type of style you play can change what is good for your team versus another, but that's my general advice. Updated Wednesday, April 2 2025 @ 12:05:37 pm PDT |
|||
| #22107 | Forum >> Help >> Coaches | CreekCat11 | 04/02/2025 11:45:42 am |
| I just took over my team (SUNY-Oswego) and am wondering about coaches. When is the best time to change head coaches, and do coaches develop like players or are their attributes set in stone? | |||
| #22108 | Forum >> Help >> Coaches | gards710 | 04/03/2025 10:20:28 am |
| Right about now is probably the best time to change head coaches - recruits are done and you haven't gotten the refresh of contacts at the flip to spend yet. I'd say anytime between now and when you start to spend those points is best. There are probably some good coaches available now, but during the flip there will be more that become available due to being let go from previous jobs or aging out. Your second question is a bit complicated. I think this sums it up well: Head coaches reveal themselves in 5 or so seasons. Assistant coaches take take longer or never fully reveal themselves as ACs, so it takes a bit to see what they are, but you can usually project after a few seasons based on which direction their ratings are going, how quickly it happens, and their evaluation comments. And they perform at their top ability from the start (they reveal, they don't develop), you just can't see how good they are for a while. |
|||
| #22109 | Forum >> Discussions >> D1 Bracket Prediction Challenge | grayman | 04/03/2025 1:42:13 pm |
Congratulations to El Jefe for winning the 2044 Bracket Prediction Challenge! This is his second win in a row, and third win overall! When it comes to Hardwood brackets, El Jefe is the boss! As if achieving boss status weren't enough of a reward, we also have a bonus reward from the committee. A glimpse of the future, this insider information will make you guaranteed to win your bracket pool. As this year's Bracket Prediction Challenge reward... we present... The names of every team that will play in the 2025 Men's Final Four!!! Auburn Florida Houston Duke Please use this information responsibly. |
|||
| #22110 | Forum >> Help >> Coaches | CreekCat11 | 04/04/2025 7:31:08 am |
| Thanks, this was helpful. Good luck in the next season. | |||
| #22111 | Forum >> Discussions >> All-Time Team Wins | El jefe | 04/04/2025 8:00:35 am |
| Updated Top 100 All-Time Wins list through 2044, and we have a new #1 again as DUCA takes over the top spot for the first time. It's likely they will stay there for next year as well. Movers and Shakers within the Top 100 - Ripon's 2nd straight appearance in the national final continues to vault them up the rankings, with the Top 5 in reach next season. Overall, Arizona State used a great run in D2 to jump 34 spots and back into the Top 100, while Wisconsin Superior vaulted 28 spots into a 5-way tie at #100. Elsewhere, Bradley moved up 24 spots, Ursinus 23 and Daeman 21. On the wrong side, the biggest movers were Harvard dropping 27 spots, Simpson 20, Cal and Richmond at 17, and MIT at 16. 1 Dominican Univ. of California - 1243 (+2) 2 Temple - 1229 (-1) 3 Mississippi - 1229 (-1) 4 Alabama - 1220 5 Butler - 1211 6 Huntington University - 1198 7 Ripon - 1194 (+3) 8 Lewis & Clark - 1182 (-1) 9 Toledo - 1179 (+2) 10 Valparaiso - 1178 (-2) 11 Francis Marion - 1168 (-2) 12 Wisconsin - 1164 (+4) 13 Yale - 1162 (+7) 14 Tennessee - 1158 (-1) 15 Missouri-Kansas City - 1158 (-1) 16 Missouri Western - 1157 (+2) 17 Eckerd - 1154 (+5) 18 Loyola-Chicago - 1153 (-1) 19 Azusa Pacific - 1152 (+5) 20 Sioux Falls - 1147 (+5) 21 Fresno Pacific - 1146 22 Saint Leo - 1146 23 Central Arkansas - 1146 24 Gonzaga - 1146 25 Simon Fraser - 1145 26 St. Thomas Aquinas - 1145 27 Seton Hall - 1143 28 Marist - 1138 29 California - 1137 30 Mount St. Joseph - 1136 31 UNC-Asheville - 1130 32 Misericordia - 1129 33 Grand Valley State - 1128 34 Grand View - 1127 35 Lincoln University PA - 1126 36 Augustana College - 1125 37 IU Purdue-Indianapolis - 1124 38 St. Marys - 1120 39 Xavier - 1117 40 Bentley - 1117 41 Ball State - 1116 42 Vanderbilt - 1116 43 Michigan - 1116 44 Jackson State - 1113 45 Michigan State - 1112 46 LSU - 1111 47 Western Michigan - 1111 48 High Point - 1110 49 Illinois Institute of Technology - 1110 50 North Carolina - 1110 51 West Virginia - 1109 52 SUNY Canton - 1109 53 Stony Brook - 1107 54 Richmond - 1106 55 Portland - 1106 56 Florida State - 1105 57 Clark - 1103 58 UNLV - 1102 59 New York University - 1102 60 Washington State - 1101 61 Wisconsin-Oshkosh - 1100 62 Marquette - 1100 63 Howard Payne - 1099 64 Prairie View A&M - 1099 65 Texas A&M - 1098 66 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - 1096 67 Texas Christian - 1096 68 Wake Forest - 1096 69 Columbia - 1096 70 California Lutheran - 1095 71 Simpson - 1093 72 Louisville - 1093 73 Alaska - 1093 74 Weber State - 1093 75 UCLA - 1092 76 Rice - 1091 77 Fordham - 1089 78 Arizona State - 1089 79 California Baptist - 1088 80 Illinois - 1088 81 Washburn - 1088 82 Harvard - 1088 83 Cal State Dominguez Hills - 1087 84 Cal State Fullerton - 1086 85 Loyola Marymount - 1085 86 San Jose State - 1085 87 Colby-Sawyer - 1084 88 SUNY Geneseo - 1084 89 Utah State - 1083 90 Texas Tech - 1082 91 Ursinus - 1082 92 Gardner-Webb - 1081 93 Texas-Arlington - 1081 94 Daemen - 1081 95 Bradley - 1081 96 Cincinnati - 1080 97 Navy - 1080 98 Queens College - 1079 99 Morehead State - 1078 100 Ohio - 1077 100 Southern Indiana - 1077 100 Mercer - 1077 100 Eastern Illinois - 1077 100 Wisconsin-Superior - 1077 |
|||
| #22112 | Forum >> Discussions >> Hardwood's greatest teams | El jefe | 04/04/2025 8:13:13 am |
| Updated list, including 2044 in bold. This season sees 3 teams added - Ripon (one of the most impressive records + RPI of all-time), Yale (capturing its first Legends title), and Toledo (the 2nd +30 PD on this list). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Criteria: Minimum .850 winning percentage, .600 RPI and 20.0 average margin of victory, except for Legends and LL2 teams which only need to meet 2 of the 3 criteria and be "close enough" on the 3rd Additional LL4 criteria: EITHER 40 wins, a .900 winning percentage, .610 RPI or a National Championship 90 teams (21 LL1, 22 LL2, 19 LL3, 28 LL4) through 2043. LL1 Vanderbilt, 2005 -- 45-4 (.918), .612, 25.1 Butler, 2009 -- 46-4 (.920), .625, 20.4, National Champions Huntington, 2015 -- 41-9 (.820), .606, 21.7 Butler, 2016 -- 39-6 (.867), .615, 18.0 Mississippi, 2019 -- 41-5 (.891), .640, 21.1 Mississippi, 2020 -- 42-7 (.857), .620, 23.9 Sioux Falls, 2027 -- 36-9 (.800), .618, 24.6 Alabama, 2028 -- 40-8 (.833), .626, 20.7 Lincoln PA, 2029 -- 43-5 (.896), .649, 22.1 Maine-Farmington, 2030 -- 39-6 (.867), .623, 20.9 Temple, 2031 -- 42-5 (.894), .613, 22.4 Missouri Western, 2035 -- 45-5 (.900), .651, 19.8, National Champions Temple, 2035 -- 39-9 (.813), .626, 22.6 Dominican-California, 2036 -- 40-8 (.833), .621, 20.3 Temple, 2036 -- 40-9 (.816), .616, 21.4 Dominican-California, 2038 -- 42-7 (.857), .628, 17.9, National Champions Alabama, 2040 -- 39-5 (.886), .637, 19.6 Yale, 2040 -- 39-6 (.867), .624, 20.0 Alabama, 2041 -- 46-4 (.920), .659, 24.2, National Champions Temple, 2043 -- 40-7 (.851), .653, 19.0 Yale, 2044 -- 39-6 (.867), .614, 24.2 LL2 Stanford, 2003 -- 41-4 (.911), .582, 22.3 Texas Tech, 2005 -- 46-4 (.920), .603, 20.5, National Champions Cal Lutheran, 2007 -- 42-5 (.894), .618, 18.2 Francis Marion, 2007 -- 39-7 (.848), .600, 20.0 Misericordia, 2009 – 38-9 (.809), .601, 22.9 Oklahoma, 2011 -- 40-6 (.870), .609, 19.9 Gardner-Webb, 2013 – 39-6 (.867), .607, 18.6 Lewis & Clark, 2017 -- 41-6 (.872), .601, 25.4 NYU, 2020 -- 43-7 (.860), .616, 19.9, National Champions Utah State, 2024 -- 46-3 (.939), .630, 26.5 Western Michigan, 2024 -- 42-5 (.894), .632, 25.4 Sioux Falls, 2026 -- 46-4 (.920), .625, 27.3 Dominican-California, 2027 -- 43-4 (.915), .621, 23.8 East Tennessee State, 2031 -- 41-5 (.891), 628, 20.8 Methodist University, 2032 -- 40-9 (.816), .617, 21.5 Marist, 2033 -- 40-6 (.870), .619, 21.6 St. Thomas Aquinas, 2034 -- 37-8 (.822), .612, 21.4 Fresno Pacific, 2036 -- 42-5 (.894), .622, 22.0 Fresno Pacific, 2041 -- 40-7 (.851), .623, 22.7 SUNY Canton, 2041 -- 42-7 (.857), .616, 18.2 Temple, 2042 -- 44-5 (.898), .629, 24.8 Ripon, 2044 -- 46-4 (.920), .648, 25.0 LL3 Misericordia, 2007 -- 42-5 (.894), .605, 20.7 Simpson, 2009 -- 42-3 (.933), .616, 24.4 Massachusetts IT, 2009 -- 46-4 (.920), .626, 20.7 Colorado, 2013 -- 44-5 (.898), .613, 24.0 Valparaiso, 2015 -- 48-2 (.960), .605, 21.4, National Champions Tulane, 2015 -- 41-4 (.911), .607, 21.8 Azusa Pacific, 2017 -- 48-2 (.960), .627, 29.2, National Champions Sacred Heart, 2017 -- 38-5 (.884), .604, 25.0 Marquette, 2020 -- 40-6 (.870), .604, 21.2 Alabama, 2022 -- 44-5 (.898), .605, 22.6, National Champions Washington State, 2024 -- 40-7 (.851), .606, 20.1 Central Washington, 2027 -- 46-2 (.958), .627, 30.8, National Champions Cal Tech, 2027 -- 40-6 (.870), .617, 21.2 Louisiana Tech, 2032 -- 40-5 (.889), .627, 23.7 New Mexico State, 2032 -- 39-6 (.867), .614, 20.3 Fresno Pacific, 2035 -- 43-4 (.915), .636, 22.5 North Carolina Central, 2037 -- 41-5 (.891), .620, 26.3, National Champions Seton Hall, 2041 -- 43-5 (.896), .604, 19.9 Ursinus, 2043 -- 41-4 (.911), .620, 24.3 LL4 Oklahoma Baptist, 2003 -- 42-3 (.933), .603, 22.1 Cal State East Bay, 2006 -- 45-2 (.957), .607, 25.0 Columbia, 2006 -- 46-4 (.920), .604, 23.3, National Champions Simpson 2008 -- 42-3 (.933), .611, 21.8 Rochester, 2010 -- 42-4 (.913), .614, 27.0 St. Thomas, 2011 -- 42-3 (.933), .627, 21.2 Mount St. Joseph, 2013 -- 42-4 (.913), .603, 23.9 Ball State, 2016 -- 47-3 (.940), .617, 23.1 Cal State Dominguez Hills, 2016 -- 43-3 (.935), .615, 24.3 Clark, 2017 -- 40-5 (.889), .619, 21.3 LSU, 2018 -- 45-2 (.957), .619, 21.8 Marist, 2018 -- 43-3 (.935), .607, 21.3 Minnesota State, 2020 -- 42-6 (.875), .600, 24.1 Georgetown, 2020 -- 42-6 (.875), .613, 22.8 Penn State, 2021 -- 39-4 (.907), .609, 25.1 Cal Tech, 2022 -- 41-5 (.891), .601, 29.0 Connecticut, 2025 -- 40-4 (.909), .605, 26.8 Central Washington, 2026 -- 45-3 (.938), .614, 25.6 Southern, 2027 -- 45-3 (.938), .623, 20.3 Texas Tech, 2028 -- 43-4 (.915), .612, 23.0 Clayton State, 2030 -- 41-6 (.872), .612, 20.7 Cedarville, 2033 -- 42-6 (.875), .613, 23.4 Yale, 2034 -- 39-4 (.907), .606, 22.8 SUNY Plattsburgh, 2036 -- 39-5 (.886), .612, 21.4 Oakland City, 2038 -- 40-6 (.870), .620, 21.1 Butler, 2041 -- 39-6 (.867), .618, 21.2 UC-Riverside, 2042 -- 40-6 (.870), .605, 20.1 Toledo, 2044 -- 42-3 (.933), .602, 31.0 |
|||
| |